tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 11, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
they will focus on formalizing the agreement they have reached in talks with vice-president joe biden. the house is about to gavel in to start the week. members will break again before starting legislative business at 2:00. lawmakers are continuing work on the energy and spending bill. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 11, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable
andy harris to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, for five minutes. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: 19 years ago my wife and i married. i was still in school. i was working as much as i could.
she was also working but we were barely making to but we made the decision we were not going to run up credit card debt and live beyond our means. we paid our school loans, we tied to our church, we ate a lot of peanut butter and lived simply. as dave ramsey said, we were determined to live our wage. the borrower is the slave to the lender. 22 applies to families and proverbs 22 applies to nations. if we were living within our means as a nation almost all the debate in the last six months in this chamber would have been different. we tried every method in the fed's bag of tricks to protect the interest rate because if the rate goes up at all the house of cards fall. we work to manipulate banks, manufacturing, because we must keep revenue up. we manage every relationship worldwide because we need the borrowing liquidity. we borrow from future generation because we're afraid that this generation has to make the hard choices.
our economy struggles which leaves washington to overmanage every sector which causes more economic uncertainty. our focus has shifted from families to corporate bailouts because we're living beyond our means. and we're trying everything we can to make it work. it's not sustainable. we have to get back in balance. capital investment and investment in industry is slower because so much of the money that will go toward starting businesses is dealing with our obligations. we have to subsidize our debt and our debt around the world when we consume our money with that debt payment we remove it from the market. america is the world leader. unfortunately, we had led the world in debt, in deficit spending, and now it's time we lead the world in how to solve a debt crisis. you see, i believe we have a debt crisis, not a debt ceiling vote crisis. if we increase the debt ceiling without beginning to solve the debt problem we did not avert
the economic disaster. we accelerated the disaster. i understand we're into a corner and we cannot balance our budget without completely collapsing our fragile economy. i get it. but i also get we were sent here to make adult choices. this is a bipartisan problem. we all point fingers at each other but we all know both parties made promises with no plan to pay for it. so since we know that, why don't we also agree to a bipartisan solution. i heard 100 times since i've been here, we need a balanced approach to solving this problem. well, let me tell you, i agree. we do need a balanced approach. a balanced budget amount approach. that is the first -- amendment approach. that's the first big step to getting us back in the balance. permanently. the constitution is not a republican or democrat document. you can't make changes to the constitution without both parties engaged, but if both parties actually work together
we can solve this debt crisis for our children and grandchildren. the last time this body dealt seriously with a balanced budget amendment was 1996. it passed this house with overwhelming bipartisan support and it failed in the senate by a single vote. can you imagine for a moment what our financial condition would be like right now if we'd started balancing our budget during the good economic times of the 1990's and kept that discipline to this present day? if you want to know the true consequences of that failed balanced budget amendment vote in 1996, point to the financial collapse of 2008 because i believe the financial collapse of 2008 would not have occurred if we had balanced the budget when we did. we would be in -- even if we did we would be in position to better respond to it. we can early learn from that lesson or repeat it. the balanced budget amendment passed the senate in the 1908's and failed in the house. then it passed in the 1990's in the house and failed in the senate. this is the moment we will either doom the next generation
of americans to financial uncertainty or balance a pudget. it settles the issue forever that we will live within our means. while this body should be able to make tough choices we know full well this body will make the tough choices only when it has to. a balanced budget amendment gives future congress the gift of a moment each year when they must make tough choices. let's bring up the amendment. let's send it to the states for a vote. it is the ultimate to allow the people to speak moment. i think the americans get this more than washington gets this. 49 of our 50 states have a structure in place right now for a balanced budget every single year. they make it work every year. we can too. the only fear from washington is the inability to spend more money at will and to control the states with our preferences and money. at the end of this labor, if we birth a balanced budget amendment all the pain of this process will have been worth it. let's show the nation we can work together. let's solve the debt problem. let's take up and pass a
it has information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> the chamber of commerce postposts this afternoon. you can see live coverage at c- span3 and at c-span.org. >> by any measure, it is a competitive industry. parks that are too many barriers to entry. >> tonight, a discussion on the new sec report on the choices that consumers are making in the wireless phone market -- fcc
report on the choices that consumers are making in the wireless phone market. >> jon huntsman was that the republican party rally on saturday. he talked about his priorities if elected. that includes addressing the national debt and government spending and launching an industrial revolution to create jobs. this a little less than 40 minutes. [applause] >> my grandfather was an educator. he used to teach his three sons that if you want to succeed in life and achieve anything worth achieving, you become not a teacher but an educator. that was the term he used. he was the principle of a high
school -- principal of a high school in california. he said if you cannot do that, if you could have a fallback and go back into business. my father went into business. he did not cut it as an educator. he did ok. i got the same lecture from my father growing up. if you want to make anything of your life, you have to go into business. that is where you can make things come create value, and change the world. not everybody is cut out for business. you have to have a fallback position in life if you cannot cut it there. you know is going to politics. [laughter] that is the long way of saying i am the loser of the loser of uneducator. the huntsman family started out with noble intentions, but here we are. we're honored and delighted to be with you in florida. when i arrived yesterday, i was called a radical.
i have been called a lot of things. i have seven kids so i am used to being called a lot of things. people ask whether they should call me ambassador or governor. i say since i have been called everything, you can call me anything. [laughter] i was called a radical yesterday by the florida democratic party. that is because i believe in balancing the budget. i believe in the ryan plan. [applause] all i can say is guilty as charged. i am here to tell you we have a cancer growing in this country. it is called debt. unless we excise, repeat, or cut it out, it will consume this
young generation. for the first time in history of this country, the greatest country that ever was, we are about to pass down to their generation country that is less good, less productive, less competitive, less compassionate, less hopeful than the country we got. that is totally unacceptable. [applause] it is a totally unnatural position for americans to be in. we're hopeful, optimistic, problem-solving people. to be down on our luck and in a funk like we are today is not american. i have come here with some great people. the thing i am most proud of in life is that i married a
floridian. [applause] i know you are looking at her wondering how i was able to land that beautiful woman. i can hear you. how do you win florida? well, you marry a girl from orlando to start with. i met her in high school. she had an exotic accent in utah in the 1970's. it is about the prettiest thing i had heard or seen. it took me years to get a date with her. it worked out. we have seven kids. our new son-in-law is from tampa. they say that if you only i-4 corner, you own florida. if you own florida, you only nomination. if you get the nomination in 2012, you will win the presidency. it all starts here. we hope you are with us. during the pledge, i was reminded of the greatest
generation. i have been before us some members of the greatest generation. i think we have some with us today. i have been at vfw posts. i have been in front of veterans' groups. i am here to tell you we have another greatest generation coming up. there also wearing the uniform of the united states of america. they are coming uback after 10 years of conflict. they deserve respect and the very best. our family is invested in that cause. 10 years at war is a long time. ladies and gentlemen, it is time to rebuild our home. it is time to the nation- building on the home front. i do not want anyone scratching their head and saying we saw and heard huntsman, but i cannot quite remember what it was all about. i want you to know why i am in
this race. why would a perfectly normal, sane human being want to run for president? i wake up at 6:00 in the morning and turned over to mary kate and say, this is insane. we have seven kids. we have a decent track record in public service. we have a target on our backs now the we are a candidate. why? she said to shut up. that is the logical site of your brain speaking to you. we all have a logical side. we also have a patriotic side. the patriotic side says, if you love this country. it was the greatest -- it is the greatest country that ever was. we all have a choice in this room. you can either stand on the sidelines and watch it all play out as if it is ok to see the
end of the american century. i never thought i would be standing in front of a group in florida talking about the prospects of the end of the american century, and here we are. you can stand on the sidelines or you can get in the arena as teddy roosevelt used to talk about. here we are. i know it will be tough and excruciating at times, but we're here because we love this country. we know that you are, too. i am running. 10%family is with us 10 because we find it totally unacceptable that the greatest -- we owned science, technology, the best standard of living the world had ever known -- and we're about to pass this on to the next generation less good
than the one we got. there are three things i want you to remember. there the three things i will fight every day for. number one, the debt and spending are unsustainable. we're spending money we do not have. if you look at the numbers out to 2020, medicare, social security, interest payments on the debt, based on the revenue flow, there is nothing left. what do you do about national security, disaster relief, other needs? we need a balanced budget amendment. [applause] we are going to get a balanced budget amendment because it is the will of the people we move in that direction. i come from the state with a balanced budget amendment. practically every state has one. it is the best safeguard against runups in spending.
is not easy, but we have to have a president that pushes us to where we can get a balanced budget amendment. it has to be read the spending is affordable. i have had people say it sounds interesting but hokey, but to me it is totally doable. we need to launch a new industrial revolution in this country. manufacturing as a percentage of gdp, 10%? i was born in 1960. he was way higher than. -- it was way higher then. we are flat on our feet waiting for what tomorrow will bring.
every time we have faced defeat, we have managed to get through it. we have managed to find our sweet spot and get back on our feet. as i travel, i see these skeletal remains of the last industrial revolution. a bit during the great depression people were thinking that we were done, how will we ever get back on our feet again? we did. i am here to tell you this country will get back on its feet again, too. [applause] is going to take three things. i say this because i had covered eight states. i will not give you a theory or hot air. i will just tell you what i have done. we need tax reform. you cannot have the second highest tax rate in the developed world and expect to attract money, capital, brainpower, talent, on to
careers. it does not work. -- entrepreneurs, it does not work. we cannot do with a top-heavy tax code with biases, loopholes, and deductions that people run with. we can do better. we have to reform the tax code. number two, we've got to get the regulatory monkey off our back. [applause] small business folks say they cannot get access to capital because of the ratio requirements these days. other businesses say they will not deploy capital because they cannot figure out health care. they have no idea what it will cost so they're conservative about the future. if we're going to get the economy right, we need regulatory reform. third, the lowest of low hanging fruit is energy independence.
for eight presidents going all the way back to richard nixon who stood up and said 34% imported oil is a travesty and we can do better, we will never let it go beyond 37%. then president carter stood up and said 40% imported oil, i will create the department of energy to ensure this never happens again. here we sit today at 60% imported oil. we are saying to ourselves, $4 a gallon? go take a look at what the millikan institute in los angeles has to say about what is really costing for a gallon of gas. when you factor in the plan is to the middle east, keeping the sea lanes open for the imported oil, storage, distribution, it
is $13 a gallon from what the analysts are saying. we should be outraged. we can do it better in this country. [applause] if you want to do something that carries a profoundly important national-security implications, it imported oil down. we have a product in this country called natural gas. i met an entrepreneur in northern utah. he said he would love to convert my suburban to natural gas. i had no idea you could do that. a paid out of pocket and had converted. -- i paid out of pocket and had it converted. people would tell me they retired of paying $4 for gasoline as if i could break up the cartel. i would tell them i paid $1 for
natural gas. people started buying natural gas cars. it spawned a revolution in our state. i saw the power of what alternative fuels and natural gas can do. it is clean, cheap, and has profoundly important national security implications. this is low hanging fruit. we should be seizing it. fourth, it is time for the united states to pull out the map and look at where we are and see if it is consistent with our national security needs. we need to look at where we need to be, who are our friends and allies, and what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. i am not sure the world remembers what that means. we love our troops. we're totally committed to our
troops. one out of every six department of defense dollars is going to afghanistan. we got the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st
century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened before. we're optimistic and can do it again. we need leadership and a game plan. number three, we have to get our position right in the world. finally, let me say that we need electable.ho is delectabl we have to have numbers.
this is about addition. we've got to pull around with our core needs are for this country -- what our core needs are for this country. i am telling you i can be that person. we will win this race. we will work tirelessly in florida, new hampshire, and south carolina. these are the three states in which we will be camped out for a long time. we are committed. we're moving forward with great enthusiasm and gusto. i ask for your help and support because i have to. if you ever won the most humbling experience in the world, if you think announcing before lady liberty is humbling, if you want to see that kind of emotional jolt within, that is a pretty awesome experience. do you want another awesome experience that is truly
humbling? ask somebody for their vote. that is the most important thing in our system they have to give you. they will look at you and analyze you. they will stew and fret and size you up. all that should be done. all i am saying is i am running on my record. look at what they did in the state of utah. look at what we have done during our public service career. i am not running for my record. i am running on my record. [applause] thank you. ladies and gentlemen, it would be our great pleasure to have you on board. we will work you on board. if you do not see us here, you will see one of our seven kids. you will get darned tired of reading the huntsman clan. we have the multiplier effect in florida. our patterns will be powerful and awesome. thank you for allowing us to be
your today. may god bless america. -- thank you for allowing us to be here today. may god bless america. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. >> if anybody has questions, please raise your hand. do we have another microphone? on.ghold don? >> i like studying american history. i think we had the greatest minds in the world that found in this nation and the reconstitution. every president has gone away
from the constitution. what we really need to do is get back to the constitution. that is all. >> let me point out one very important aspect of that as we ponder federalism, the 10th amendment, and talk about the role of the states going forward. as a governor, one of the most important things we can do, here's the answer to health care reform. you will not solve the health care reform in one sitting. that is what has been tried. $1 trillion dropped on us of the course of 10 years. the states in this republic have got to find solutions. you will take a few years. the laboratories of democracy are going to find how to close the gap on spending, ways to deal with the uninsured, how to harmonize medical records, taking costs out. we will find the solutions.
one of the things i am taking from your comment that has resonated since i was governor is the power of the states in finding solutions -- term. thank you. [applause] >> will you stand with israel? >> of course i will stand with israel. [applause] >> will you make a commitment today that if you are elected, you will immediately repeal every executive order that obama has ever signed? [laughter] [applause] >> that sounds right. i will follow-up and get back to you. ones talk about israel for second. i mentioned getting it right with our allies. as the middle east is going through this transformation change, i liken it to the end of
the ottoman empire. there was sweeping change back then. is happens periodically. -- this happens periodically. we're going through it again. i do not know why we are in libya. i cannot figure that out. [applause] this is a change that is going to play out. we're probably not going to get clarity on what the middle east looks like for another five for 10 years. all the while, we have to remember who is our centerpiece relationship in the middle east. that is israel. with the expectations on the peace process, we cannot wish for it more than they do. they are in a difficult and unpredictable set of circumstances. the people they are negotiating with wish them ill.
no one knows what the middle east will look like in years to come. we are in a sea of change. we have to hang with israel. we have to remember we will need partners in the world who believe in economic vitality and job creation. that is first and foremost for us. people who get the part about counter-terrorism, because we're not fighting a nation state. we're fighting subsidiaries that are popping up. sometimes their loosely affiliated with other organizations. they are funded and in-american. we need to be partnered with people who are as fervent in their drive against terrorism as we are. [applause] >> ethanol fouls up my boat and
car. it costs more to make. what is your feeling about ethanol? >> there's probably reason the governor of iowa is upset with me right now. i do not like subsidies that go into ethanol. i do not like subsidies at all. is a budget issue. whether it is through loopholes or subsidies, we have got to address them. we have to create a level playing field for people in this country. we're not there today. per gallon. we have a similar situation in our subsidies for ethanol. that is something that needs to be addressed. [applause] thank you. >> as a retired foreign service officer, i will not bore you
with issues of foreign policy. i will read it all on wikileaks. [laughter] i read everything he wrote. a lot of good words today. when i did not hear -- jobs. i would like for you to speak for a minute about what you can do in your administration, which i will vote for, to put more americans back to work. thank you. >> i appreciate first and foremost that you are a retired foreign service officer. one of the highlights of my service overseas the last to the years was rubbing shoulders with men and women serving their countries in unique and sensitive ways. you would be very proud of them. the embassy in china is the second-largest in the world. it was a truly inspiring thing to be able to work with a lot of unsung heroes who nobody will
ever know about who are doing the work of the united states overseas in difficult circumstances. jobs are rolled up in the new industrial revolution. it is all about jobs. that is the bottom line of this exercise. it must be. at 9.2% unemployment, if we cannot hit the sweet spot in job creation and the industries of tomorrow, we will lose. the industrial revolution speaks to that. we have the capital in this country. we have the innovation and new technologies holed up in the pipeline. but there is no confidence in the system right now. there's no confidence in tomorrow as an economy. people are not applying the technology to the marketplace. because of that, jobs are not being created.
for tax reform and getting the regulatory monkey off our back, i was the first governor to sign on to the pickens plan. everything about the new industrial revolution speaks to jobs thank you for reminding me we should be sprinkling that word throughout. [applause] >> it is my understanding at one time, you were in favor of cap- and-trade. then you went to say now is not the right time for cap-and- trade. can you clarify the right time for cap-and-trade? as a conservative, i do not believe in cap-and-trade. >> about for five years ago, ceo's, the experts in the field of energy were all talking about how to deal with the missions --
emissions. practically every governor was talking about cap-and-trade. it is not viable. we must ensure that the path to growth and job creation is not hindered. cap-and-trade was left behind. i am not sure will ever be reintroduced. technologies will be developed over time. our priorities economic expansion and jobs. thank you. [applause] >> we will take one more and then let you go. >> thank you for being here today. we appreciate it. our taxpaying citizens are burdened by and have competition for jobs, have extra expenses , because of illegal immigrants in
our country. please outline your position on homeland security and a mandatory e-verify in our country. >> let me start with the first step i would take on illegal immigration. let's not forget about the part about legal immigration. why is canada doing well economically? why is the housing market in vancouver doing well. . it is probably the best housing market in the world. it is because of legal immigration. people are buying assets and moving up in the world. now to illegal immigration. i do not think this country has any credibility on the subject. nor will anybody participate in the debate until we protect our border. [applause] that is the one thing we must do. it is 1,800 miles.
we have done about 1/3 of it. it is about $2 million per mile. you can fence most of it. i have been down to the border. you have technology that can handle the other part. you have boots on the ground to supplement that. by turning to the border state governors who can turn to the president to verify the border is secure, then we will move on with the discussion. there has been so much rhetoric and anger in the discussion without taking any steps at all. let's do the fundamentals first. let's take care of the border. e-verify, i think it is a good thing. by using it through private enterprise and being able to weed out those without proper documentation, ultimately people will move on if they're not properly documented.
2012 presidential race with the latest events from the campaign trail, biography information on the candidates, updates from candidates and political reporters, and links to media partners in the early caucus states. >> we think there are too many structural barriers to entry and growth. consumers should have better access. >> tonight, a discussion on the report on choices consumers are making in the wireless market. >> the c-span network to provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and social media networking sites.
find our content any time through the c-span video library. we bring our resources to your community. it is washington your way. it is now available in more than 100 million homes. made possible by cable, provided as a public service. >> the house is in recess until 2:00. at 2:00, and meeting is scheduled to get underway between president obama and congressional lawmakers continuing the negotiations on the federal budget and raising the debt ceiling. the president give an update earlier today from the white house briefing room. >> good morning, everybody. i want to give a quick update on what is happening with the debt negotiations, provide my perspective, and then i will take questions.
i met with congressional leaders yesterday. we will be meeting again today. we will meet every day until we get this resolved. the good news is that all the leaders continue believe that it is not acceptable for us not to raise the debt ceiling and to allow the u.s. government to default. we cannot threaten the united states full faith and credit for the first time in our history. we still have a lot of work to do to get the problem solved. let me make a couple points. first of all, all of us agree we should use this opportunity to do something meaningful on debt and deficits. the reports have been largely accurate that speaker john
boehner and myself have been in a series of conversations about doing the biggest deal possible to resolve our debt and deficit challenge for a long stretch of time. i appreciate his good-faith efforts on the front. when i emphasized to the broader group of congressional leaders yesterday is that now's the time to deal with these issues. if not now, when? i have been hearing from my republican friends for some time that it is a moral imperative to tackle the debt and deficits in a serious way. i have been hearing that this is creating uncertainty and holding back investment on the part of the business community. i have said to them, let's go. it is possible for us to construct a package that would
be balanced, shared sacrifice, involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, involve meaningful changes to medicare, social security, and medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors but also make sure those programs are there for this generation and the next. it is possible to bring in revenue in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but that is fair and balanced. we have agreed to a series of spending cuts that will make the government leaner, meaner, and more effective, more efficient. he will give taxpayers greater bang for their buck. that includes health spending and programs i like very much.
they would be nice to have but we cannot afford them right now. if you look at the overall package, we could achieve a situation in which our deficits were at a manageable level and our debt levels were stabilized. the economy as a whole would benefit from that. moreover, i think it would give the american people enormous confidence that this town could actually do something once and awhile in a while. we could defy the belief that we are only thinking of the next election and we can break out of that and do what is right for the country. i continue to push congressional leaders for the largest possible deal. there's going to be resistance. there is resistance on my side to anything on entitlements.
there's strong resistance on the republican side to do anything on revenues. wants 100% of itss theological dispositions, we cannot get anything done. american people want something to be done. they feel urgency about the breakdown in the political process and the situation with the economy. what i have said to the leaders is to bring back to me some ideas that you think can get the necessary votes in the house and senate. i am happy to consider all options and alternatives they are looking at. consider s i will not conten
are temporary stopgap resolutions to the problem. this is the united states america. we do not manage our affairs in three-month increments. we do not risk u.s. default on our obligations because we cannot put politics aside. i have been very clear to them. we will resolve this for a reasonable period of time. we will resolve this in a serious way. my hope is that as a consequence of negotiations we will come up with a plan that solves our short-term debt and deficit problems, avoids default, stabilizes the economy, and
proves to the american people we can actually get things done in this country and in this town. i will take some questions, starting with that fellow. >> given that you are running out of time, where the talks go if republicans continue to oppose tax increases? on your point about note short- term measures, if it came down to that, would you veto it? >> i will not sign a 30-day or 90-day extension. that is not an acceptable approach. if we think it is hard now, imagine how they will be thinking six months from now in the middle of the election season. it is not going to get easier. it will get harder. we might as well do it now.
we rise will pull off a band- aid, eat our peas. [laughter] now is the time to do it. if not now, when? we keep talking about this and have these high-minded pronouncements about how we have got to get control of the deficit, how we owe it to our children and grandchildren. let's step up. let's do it. i am prepared to do it. i am prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done. i expect that the other side should be willing to do the same thing, if they mean what they say that this is important. i want to be crystal clear. nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. nobody has talked about
increasing taxes next year. what we have talked about is that starting in 2013, we will have gotten rid of some of the egregious loopholes benefiting corporate jet owners or oil companies when they are making billions of dollars of profits. we have said as part of a broader package, we should have revenues. the best way to get those revenues are from folks like me who have been extraordinarily fortunate. millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more, going back to the bush tax rates. if they do not like that, i am happy to work on tax reform that could lower everyone's rates and broaden the base.
that is as long as the package is sufficiently progressive so we're not balancing the budget on the backs of middle-class and working families not letting wall street managers off the hook. new york wall street say the president should not want job- killing tax increases when the is weak, we're not talking about right now. we're talking about 2013 and out. the only proposition about raising taxes next year is if we do not renew the payroll tax cuts from december. i am in favor of renewing it for next year as well. some republicans have said we may not renew it. if we do not renew that, the $1,000 going to a typical
american family as a consequence of the tax cuts, that lapses. that could weaken the economy. i have bent over backwards to work with the republicans to try to come up with the formulation that does not require them to vote in the next month to increase taxes. i have said to identify in revenue package that makes sense with the sacrifices we're asking other people to make and i am happy to work with them to figure out how else we might do it. i cannot see a path to a deal if they do not budge period. if the basic proposition is it is my way or the highway, we're probably not going to get something done because we have divided government.
we have democrats controlling the senate. we're probably going to need democratic votes in the house for any package to possibly pass. if mitch mcconnell and john sincere, they willre have to compromise despite -- just like democrats, and just like i show myself willing to compromise. >> you said everything -- everyone wants to do something by august 2.
is it -- is the problem that you and others have not convinced the american public that there is a crisis. >> let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. the public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of auction treasury goes. there were about their jobs and their neighborhood. we are paid to worry about that. depending on how you phrase the question, if you said to the american people, is a good idea for the united states not to pay its bills and potentially create another recession that could throw millions of more people out of work? i feel confident i can get a majority on my side on that one. that is the fact. if we don't raise the debt ceiling and we see a crisis in
the market and interest rates are going up significantly and everyone is paying higher interest rates on their car loans and mortgages and credit cards and that is sucking up a whole bunch of additional money out of the pockets of american people, i promise you they won't like that. i will say that some of the professional politicians know better. for them to say that we should not be raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. they know better. this is not something -- that i am making of. this not something that tim geithner is making up. we are not out here trying to use this as a means of doing all these really tough political
things. i would rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes like new programs or the nfl season getting results. unfortunately, this is what is on our plate. it is before us right now and we have to deal with it. what you are right about is that the leaders in a room here at a certain point have to step up and do the right thing regardless of the voices in our respective parties that are trying to undermine that effort. i have a stake in john boehner successfully persuading his caucus that this is the right thing to do like he has a stake in seeing me successfully persuade the democratic party that we should take on these problems we have been talking about for too long but have not been doing anything about. >> back to the $4 trillion
deficit -- >> i think john boehner has been sincere about doing something big. his politics in his caucus are very difficult. you are right -- this is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections or obtain short-term political gain when we are in a position to do something hard. we have not always laid the groundwork for it. it will take some work on his side but it will take some work on our side. in order to get this thing done. the vast majority of democrats on capitol hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements. they would prefer frankly not to to have to do anything on some
of these debt and deficit problems and i am sympathetic to those concerns because they are looking after folks who are already hurting and vulnerable and families and seniors who are dependable -- are dependent on some of these programs. i tried to explain that if you look at the numbers, medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain the program no matter how much taxes go up. it is not an option for us to sit by and nothing. if you are a progressive who cares about the integrity of social security and medicare and medicaid and believes that that is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and look after the most vulnerable and we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required over the long term.
if you are a progressive that cares about investment and head start and student loan programs and medical research and infrastructure, we will not be able to make progress of in those areas if we have not gotten our fiscal house in order. the argument i am making to my party is -- the values we care about, making sure that everybody in this country has a shot at the american dream and everybody is out there with the opportunity to succeed if they work hard and live a responsible life and the government has a role to play in providing some of that opportunity through things like student loans, making sure our roads and highways and airports are functioning and making sure that we are investing in research and development for the high-tech jobs of the future -- if you care about those that is, you've got to be interested in figuring out how to pay for it in a
responsible way. we will have a sales job. this is not pleasant. it is hard to persuade people to do hard stop. stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. the reason we have a problem is because people keep avoiding hard things. now is the time for us to take it on. >> you keep talking about balance and shared sacrifice. i think it is now 4-1 as far as raising taxes. that does not seem fair to democrats. can you clarify your social security position? would any of the money of social security go toward the deficit? >> with respect to social
security, it is not the source of our deficit problems. if it is part of a package, social security would be an issue of how we make sure social security and extends its life and is strengthened. the reason to do so security is to strengthen it and make sure those benefits are there for seniors in the out years. the reason to include that the testing in this package if you were going to take a couple of tough votes, you might as well do it now. as opposed to trying to muster up the political will to get something done further down in the future. with respect to a balanced package -- is the package we are talking about exactly what i would want? no.
i might want more revenues. and fewer cuts to programs that benefit middle-class families that are trying to send their kids to college or benefit all of us because we are investing more in medical research. i make no claim that the position that speaker john boehner and i have discussed reflect 100% of what i want. that is the point. my point is that i am willing to move in their direction in order to get something done that is what compromise entails. we have a system of government in which everybody has to give a little bit. the revenue components that we have discussed would be significant and would target folks who can most afford it. any revenues --
you may hear the argument, why not just go ahead and do all the cuts and we can debate the revenue issues in the election? you will hear that from some republicans. the problem is is that if you don't do the revenues then to get the same amount of savings, you've got to have more cuts. that means that it is seniors or it is poor kids or it is medical researchers or it is our infrastructure that suffers. i do not want and i will not accept a deal in which i am asked to do nothing. in fact, i am able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that i don't need while a parent out
there struggling to send their kid to college suddenly finds that that got a couple of thousand dollars less in grants or student loans. that is what the revenue debate is about. it is not because i want to raise revenues for the sake of raising revenues or have some grand ambition to create a bigger government. it is because it will record to solve the problem, there are finite number of ways to do that. if you don't have revenues, it means you are putting more of a bird and on the people who can least afford it. and that is not fair. the american people agree with me on that. >> unemployment is at 9.2% and a large amount of jobs lost is from the public sector. [inaudible]
>> our biggest priority as an administration is getting the economy back on track and putting people back to work. without re-litigating the past, i am absolutely convinced and the vast majority of economists are convinced that the steps we took in the recovery act saved millions of people their jobs. or created a whole bunch of jobs. part of the evidence of that is as you see what happens with the recovery act phasing out. when i came into office and budgets were hemorrhaging at the state level, part of the recovery act was giving states help so they would not have to lay off teachers and police officers and firefighters. as we have seen the federal
support for states to manage, you have seen the biggest job losses in the public sector, teachers, police officers, firefighters losing their jobs. my strong preference would be for us to figure out ways we can continue to provide help across the board but i am operating within some political constraints here. whatever i do have to go through the house of representatives. that means that among the options that are available to us is, for example, the payroll tax cut. that might not be exactly the kind of program that i would do in order to boost employment but it makes a difference because it puts money in the pockets of people who are then spending it at businesses large and small and that gives them more customers and increase demand and because businesses a greater
incentive to hire. that would be, for example, a component of this overall package. unemployment benefits -- again, it puts money in the pocket of people out there knocking on doors trying to find a job every day, giving them those resources and that puts more money into the economy and that potentially improve the climate for businesses to want to hire. as part of a component of a deal, i think it is important for us to look at what the steps are that we can take short term in order to put folks back to work. i am not somebody who believes that just because we solve the deficit and debt problems short- term, medium-term, or long-term debt that automatically solve the unemployment problem. i think we will still have to do a bunch of stuff including trade deals that are before congress right now that could add tens of
thousands of jobs. republicans gave me this list at the beginning of this year as a priority, something they thought they could do. i am ready to do it and so far, we have not gotten the kind of movement i would have expected. we've got the potential to create an infrastructure bank that could put construction workers to work right now be rebuilding our roads and bridges and are vital infrastructure across the country. those are still areas where i think we can make the enormous progress. i do think that if the country as a whole series washington act responsibly, compromise is being made, the deficit and debt being dealt with for 10, 15, 20 years, that that will help with business is feeling more
confident about aggressively investing in this country, foreign investors saying that america has its act together and are willing to invest, and so it can have a positive impact in overall growth and employment. it is not the only solution. we will still have to have a strong jobs agenda. it is part of a solution. i might add that it is the primary solution that the republicans have offered one comes to jobs. they keep on going out there and saying, mr. president, what are you doing about jobs? we have to get government spending under control and we have to get our deficit under control. i say okay, let's go. where are they? this is what they claim would be the single biggest boost to business certainty and confidence. so, what is the holdup?
with respect to social security, as i indicated earlier, making changes to these programs is so difficult that this may be an opportunity for us to go ahead and do something smart that strengthens social security and kids not just this generation but future generations the opportunity that this thing will be in there for the long haul. that may not be possible. you're absolutely right, social security is not the driver of our long-term deficits and debts. on the other hand, we want to make sure that social security will be there for the next generations and if there is a reasonable deal to be had on it, it is one that i am willing to pursue. >> what about raising the retirement age? >> i will probably not get into
the details right now of the negotiations. i might enjoy negotiating with you but i don't know how much juice you have an republican caucus. [laughter] that's what i figure. all right, >> you have said that economists have agreed that a deal made to be made. do you have business leaders in called to lobby congress? >> i have spoken extensively to business leaders. i think the business leaders in the abstract want to see a resolution to this problem. i found that they are somewhat hesitant to weigh in on some of these issues even if they're willing to say something privately to me partly because they have a whole bunch of business pending before
congress. they don't want to make anybody mad. this is a problem of our politics and politicians but it is not exclusively a problem of our politics and politicians. the business community is a lot like everyone else. we want to cut everybody else's stuff and we want to keep our stuff. we want to cut our taxes but if you want to raise revenue with somebody else's taxes, that it's ok. that kind of mind-set is why we never get the problem solved. there have been business leaders like warren buffett way think has spoken out forcefully on this issue. i think some of the people who participated in a sensible discussion made it clear that -- in the simpson decibels discussion made it clear that -- simpson-bowles discussion.
the average worker saw a 0-1% raise last year. there are a lot of well-meaning business people out there who recognize the need to make something happen. i think they have been hesitant to be as straightforward as i would like. a balanced package means we have spending cuts and we've got some increase revenue and it means that we are taking on some of the drivers of our long-term debt and deficits. >> can you say whether the administration is working on any sort of contingency plan? >> we are going to get this done
by august 2. >> you said that the speaker faces tough politics in his caucus. do you have complete conference that he can deliver the vote on anything he agrees to? is he in control of his caucus? >> that is a question for the speaker, not based question for me. -- not a question for me. my experience with john boehner has been good. i think he is a good man who wants to do right by the country. i think the politics that swept him into the speakership were good for a midterm election but tough for governing. part of what the republican caucus generally needs to recognize is that american
democracy works when people listen to each other, are willing to give each of the benefit of the doubt. we assume the patriotism and good intentions of the other side and we are willing to make some sensible compromises to solve the problems. i think there are members of that caucus group who have not fully arrived at that realization, yet. >> your confidence was not shaken by him walking away from the big deal? >> these things are tough process. in fairness, a big deal would require a lot of work on the part of harry reid and nancy pelosi and myself to bring democrats along. if everybody gets into the boat at the same time, it does not tip over. that was bob dole's famous comment after striking a deal
with the president and mr. gingrich back in the 1990's. that is always the case when it comes to difficult but important tasks like this. last question -- >> i want to revisit the issue of sacrifice. in 2009, you said that was the worst of times. now you have minorities, the elderly, as well as people who are scared of losing their job. [inaudible] the support the debt-free america act? >> i will not comment on a particular bill right now.
let me speak your broader point. this recession has been hard on everybody. obviously, it is carter on folks who have less -- is harder on folks who have less. the thing that i am obsessed with and have been since i came into office is all those families out there who are doing the right thing every single day, looking after their families, who are just struggling to keep up and feel like they are falling behind no matter how hard they work. i got a letter this past week from a woman whose husband had lost his job, had pounded the pavement, finally found a job,
they felt like things were stabilizing for a few months, six months later, he lost the second job and they're back looking again. they are trying to figure out how they can make ends meet. there are hundreds of thousands of folks out there who really have seen as tough an economy as we have seen in our lifetimes. we took very aggressive steps when i first came into office to yank the economy out of a potential great depression and stabilize. we were largely successful in stabilizing it but we stabilized at a level where unemployment is still too high and the economy is not growing fast enough to make up for all the jobs that were lost before it took office and in the few months just after. this and unemployment rate has
been really struggling. there are a couple of ways we can solve that. number one is to make sure that the overall economy is growing. we have continued to take a series of steps to make sure that there is money in people's pockets and they can go out and spend and that is what the payroll tax cuts were about. we've taken a number of steps to make sure businesses are willing to invest. that is what the small business tax cuts and some of the tax breaks for companies willing to invest in plants and equipment and zero capital gains for small businesses is about. it was about giving businesses more incentive to invest. we have worked to make sure that the training programs out there for folks who have to shift from jobs that may not exist anymore so that they could get the training they need for the jobs that do exist, that those are improved and sharpened.
we put forward a series of proposals to make sure that regulations that may be unnecessary and are hampering some businesses from investing, that we are examining all those. if they are not providing the kind of benefits in terms of the public health of clean air and clean water, worker safety that have been promised, we should get rid of some of those regulations. we have been looking at the whole menu of steps that can be taken. we are now in a situation where because the economy has moved slower than we wanted, because of the deficits and debt that result from the recession and the crisis, that taking an approach the cost trillions of dollars is not an option. we don't have that kind of money
right now. what we can do is to solve this underlying debt and deficit problem for a long period of time so that we can then get back to having a conversation about since we now have solved this problem, that is no longer what is hampering economic growth. everybody feels that the ground is stable under our feet. are there some strategies we could pursue that would really focus on some targeted job growth? infrastructure is a primary example. the infrastructure bank we propose is relatively small. could we imagine a project where we are rebuilding roads and bridges and ports and schools and broadband lines and spared prison taking all those
construction workers and putting them to work right now? i can imagine a very aggressive program like that that i think the american people would rally around and would be good for the economy not just next year or the year after but for the next 20 or 30 years. we cannot even have that conversation if people feel as if we don't have our fiscal house in order. now,dea here is let's act let's get to this problem off the table, and then with some firm footing, a solid fiscal situation we will then be in a position to make the kind of investments i think will be necessary to win the future. this is not a right or left, conservative/liberal situation. this is how we operate in a smart way to understand we have short-term challenges and some long-term challenges. if we can solve some of the long-term challenge is, that
frees up some of our energies to be able to deal with the short- term ones. all right? thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> even as president obama was holding this briefing, republicans were disagreeing with the president's plan to include cutbacks and tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations. house speaker john boehner's office sent two e-mails to his list saying that tax hikes should never have been in the discussion. he is holding his own briefing from the capital visitors center. we plan to take your calls after this news conference. a little bit of information -- the house is in recess now until 2:00 p.m. eastern and that will be back for more work on energy and water spending for next year. also at 2:00, a meeting is scheduled to get under way between president obama and congressional lawmakers continuing the negotiations on the federal budget and raising the debt ceiling.
[inaudible] [no audio] >> as you saw the president's press conference, the president said there would be no deal on raising the government's debt limit it republicans won't compromise. >> good afternoon, everyone. i appreciate what the president said today about the need for us to come together and get this done. our disagreements are not personal and they never have been.
the gulf between the two parties now is about policy, it is not about process and it is not about personalities. the president and i agree that the current levels of spending including entitlement spending are unsustainable. the president and i do not agree on his view that the government needs more revenue through higher taxes on job creation. the president and i also disagree on the extent of the entitlement problem and what is necessary in order to solve it. most americans would say that a balanced approach is a simple one. the administration gets the debt limit increase and the american people get their spending cuts. and the reforms and adding tax increases to the equation does not balance anything. the american people understand that tax hikes destroy jobs. the last thing we should be doing right now at a time of
9.2% unemployment is enacting more government policies that will destroy jobs. the american people want for us to work together to remove government barriers that are getting in the way of job creation and real economic growth. two of the biggest obstacles to job growth that we face are out of control entitlement spending and the current tax code. i think the fundamental questions are this -- can you control government spending without fundamentally reforming entitlements? i think the answer is no. do you need to raise taxes in order to get control spending? i think the answer is no. if you want to see an increase in government revenues, left for the economy and create jobs, broaden the tax base, and lower rates. senator rubio last week we don't need more taxes, we need more
taxpayers. are disagreeing with the president is not about closing loopholes. none of us are formed of loopholes. our disagreement is over the idea of raising taxes on the very people we are asking to create jobs. i would agree with the president that the national debt limit must be raised. i am glad that he made the case for it today. the american people will not accept and the house cannot pass a bill that raises taxes on job creators. the house can only pass a debt limit bill that includes spending cuts larger than the hike in the debt limit as well as real restraints on future spending. my colleagues and i believe we should enact a balanced budget amendment to keep the federal government from spending us into the same situation again. i think we also need reductions in spending right now and spending caps to insure that any progress that we make is not
undone in the future. i agree with the president that we cannot allow our nation to default on our debt. to prevent a default, a bill must pass the congress. a bill that does not meet these tests cannot pass the house of representatives. this is the message we will take again to the white house today and hope that we can work our way through this. >> you have up to 120 people on your side. >> whatever agreement we come to will have to pass the house and senate on a bipartisan basis. >> the democratic president said we need to cut entitlements.
he praised you for making a good-faith effort to come to a big agreement. i personal level, are you disappointed that this moment seems to have gone away of the big agreement that would truly deal with the debt crisis? >> we have been involved in very sincere and honest negotiations and honest discussions. i think the president and i both understand that the nation faces a very difficult decision. there clearly is no personality difference between the president and die. we get along fine. this boils down to two things. i said on saturday night -- the president continues to insist on raising taxes and they are just not serious enough about fundamental entitlement reforms to solve the problem for the near to intermediate future. i want to get there.
i want to do what i think is in the best interest of the country. but it takes two to tango and they are not there yet. >> you talked to the president' about $4 trillion -- >> there were no tax increases ever on the table. there was never any agreement to allow tax rates to go up in any discussion i have ever had with the white house, not once. >> the president said he is prepared to take significant heat from his party to get something done are you no longer willing to take similar heat? >> i understand this will take sacrifice and will take political capital on both sides. i am certainly willing to take my fair share of it. if we're going to take political
capital that let's step up and do the big thing and the right thing for the country. >> $4 trillion? >> what kind of non-tax revenues have you guys suggested as a compromise on your part to bring revenues into the equation? >> as you are well aware, there was a big conversation under way about revenues, revenues in the context of tax reform, lowering rates, broadening the base which would encourage more economic activity and real growth in our economy. that would result in additional revenues to the federal government. there is in fact a way to do this but we are not -- that conversation cannot continue if they are not serious about fundamental reform of the entitlement programs. sorry, i got to go to the white house, thank you.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now that we have heard from president obama and house speaker john bennett, a chance for a week away and as we wait for the house to come in in about 20 minutes from now at 2:00 p.m. eastern. our first call is from stephen from south carolina, a democrat. hey there, steven. ok, we will take a call from allen from ohio, an independent college. caller. caller: my biggest pet peeve is i am 51 years old. i am single.
i worked since i was 16 years old. i am paying right now in federal, just federal taxes alone, i have reached the halfway mark in one year. i project to pay just and federal tax this year alone $12,000. they are talking about possibly reducing my social security when i hit 65 or 67 or 70 years old. they are killing me on my personal income tax between the state, city, so security, medicare, and the federal tax. how much as a single man supposed to help the economy when they are just killing me taking my money? if they would give me my money back, i would spend it and buy things and help this economy. they are just killing guys like me in this country. host: are you for a larger spending deal? caller: no, i am for them eliminating income tax.
every time i spend my hard- earned money, i have to pay taxes on it. before i get my paycheck every week, 30-33 cents on the dollar is gone. i figured it out to where i am paying 40 cents of every dollar i make as a single individual in this country and that is going into taxes in one form or another. i'm only making $80,000 per year. most people would say i am living good. they are just killing guys like me. host: thank you for your call. moving to a democrat from rockville, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to tell the negotiators, especially john boehner, that he needs to stop thinking that we americans out here are stupid. we clearly have seen the
republicans running to wall street as far back as when bush was in office. it is as if the 1% or 2% of these people -- they already have trillions of dollars. that is not the reason why they are not hiring because they are afraid of losing money. we have nowhere to go so they can lose money. we have to buy their products and we have to live. we have no choice. he is clearly using this presidential election as a talking point. host: are you a democrat? caller: yes. host: moving to a republican caller from richmond, va., go ahead. caller: i would tell negotiators
not to fall into the obama trap. this is about tricking the republicans into breaking their note new tax pledge because the only way obama and the democrats can be the republicans is if they beat themselves like george h. w. bush did. that is why he was a onetime president. why are we talking about raising on rich people and not 40 million people who are on welfare? 9.2% unemployment and an economy that stings, yes, the fox is in the house. the fox is not obama, it is the truth that comes from god host: from chicago, go ahead caller: i am so disappointed in the john boehner leader -- lack of leadership. i think mr. boehner would do better if he tried to be more productive in the house. he has not created any jobss.
he has been in the majority for seven months. he is not helping us continue our economic progress. i thank him and mr. mcconnell are so against our president that they are willing to watch our nation default on a \ our word in this and the markets today are hemorrhaging. this is not mr. obama. it is john boehner who we need to vote out of leadership because the american people deserve better and he cannot keep saying we need jobs, mr. president, when he is not doing anything. he does not have one job bill in seven months. they won't let any jobs bills passed. we need to get republicans back in the minority, thank you. thank you and god bless the united states of america and we
must rise against republicans. host: we did hear speaker john boehner say he was heading to the white house. he and other congressional leaders are meeting with president obama on the debt at 2:00 p.m. eastern time, in about 50 minutes. the associated press says the discussion will focus on formalizing the tentative agreements lawmakers have raised in the talks led by vice president biden. now a republican from florida. caller: i would have to look at this and say that as a republican, i would consider myself to be a moderate republican. i am not a tea party republican. and everything. i look at things and try to keep it in a balance. i have to agree with the president in some respects on raising some of the taxes. we as republicans sit there and
we keep saying we want to cut the taxes on the top end. if you look at the cbo and the irs, when they did their top 400 with the taxpayers in the country, each averaging $345 million and the actual tax rate they pay was only 17% that is less than the 25%. i am getting the feeling in my party that the only people they are looking to represent are the multifaceted businesses and multibillion dollar businesses and the people who are making over $250,000-$350,000. host: worry about the presence saying he would be willing to take heat from those in his party? -- what did you think about the president saying he would be willing to take heat from those in his own party? caller: i commend him for that.
eric cantor came out and said that if you go ahead and do anything for taxes, i will vote against you. host: tulsa, oklahoma. caller: i agree with the last two colors. i think john boehner's performance was really pathetic. he made his sound bite and talked about the job creators. government is the one that is losing the jobs. we need to fund the federal employees, the teachers, firefighters. there does not seem to be any compromise on the part of the republicans. they have drawn this ideological line the taxes are bad. when you get the top 1% of this country are only paying 17% and the rest are paying 35%, i am in his group. we're getting taxed to death.
there should be much more progressive taxation for the wealthy so we could have less profit burden on us. host: a democrat, what do you think about putting up to this august 2 deadline that is less than one month away? wrong: there's something with the priorities of this country. if we keep cutting back on services for children and the elderly and the sec, the destitute and the port and anything that helps people stay afloat. why are we giving these tax breaks to multibillion mayors, big business and oil companies? they are not raising taxes. that is off the table. they are talking about cutting loopholes. they're talking about phasing them in. and people who make over
$500,000 per year. that is only right. to cut the entitlements on the people -- i am disabled. i worked all my life and i am disabled. i have multiple things wrong with me. i get medicaid, too. everything is going up but my checks don't go up. i live on food stamps and i get medicaid. my medical pays mike huckabee on my medicare or will -- my medical pays my copiague on my -- co-pay on my medicare. host: the republican from winchester, va. -- caller: i hear a lot of people talking about john banner not doing too much.
-- john boehner not doing too much. i think when he talks about tax code, people need to understand that he is talking about cutting the loopholes out of the tax code while the riches have -- while the rich have the right off. those of a kind of things he is going after that makes great sense this is so weakened that the taxation and spread more over the high income people. many people that have called in simply have missed that point. he says he wants the tax code change than the president is now acting like he agrees that the tax code should be changed. as far as the tax increase, those people that have that money will invested into their businesses and into jobs for the united states of america which will provide money into the treasury from taxes from those
people going to work. obama spent $1 trillion and he has increased the unemployment terribly. host: thank you for your call. we will now take another look at speaker john boehner and what he had to say a few minutes ago from the capital. >> our disagreements are not personal and never have been but the gulf between the two parties policy is not about process and it is not about
personalities. the president and i agree that the current levels of spending including entitlement spending are unsustainable. the president and i do not agree on his view that government needs and our revenues through higher taxes on job creators. the president and i also disagree on the extent of the entitlement problem and what is necessary in order to solve it. most americans would say that a balanced approach is a simple one. the administration gets a debt limit increase in the american people get their spending cuts. and there reforms and adding tax increases to the equation does not balance anything. the american people understand that tax hikes destroy jobs. the last thing we should be doing right now at a time of 9.2% unemployment is enacting more government policies that will destroy jobs.
what the american people want is for us to work together to remove government barriers that are getting in the way of job creation and real economic growth. two of the biggest obstacles to job growth that we face are out of control entitlement spending and the current tax code. i think the fundamental questions are this -- can you control government spending without fundamentally reforming entitlements? i think the answer is no. do you need to raise taxes in order to get control spending? think the answer is no. if you want to see an increasing government revenues, let's grow the economy and broaden the tax rates and lower the tax rate. we don't need more taxes, what we need are more taxpayers. our disagreement with the president is not about closing loopholes. none of us are fond of loopholes.
our disagreement is over the idea of raising taxes on the very people that we are asking to create jobs in our country for. i would agree that the national debt limit must be raised. i am glad that he made the case for it today. the american people will not accept and the house cannot pass a bill that raises taxes on job creators. the house can only pass a debt limit bill that includes spending cuts larger than the hike in the debt limit as well as real restraints on future spending. my colleagues and i believe we should enact a balanced budget amendment to keep the federal government from spending us into the same situation again. i think we also need real reduction in spending right now and spending caps to insure that any progress that we make is not undone in the future. i agree with the president that we cannot allow our nation to default on our debt.
to prevent a default, a bill must pass the congress and a bill that does not meet these tests cannot pass the house of representatives. this is the message that we will take again to the white house today and hope that we can work our way through this. >> you are carrying most of the water here. you anywhere from 80-120 people on the raising of the debt ceiling a matter what. how can you get past this? >> i think whatever agreement we come to will have to pass the house and senate on a bipartisan basis. >> there was an extraordinary moment at the white house when a democratic president said we need to cut entitlements and he also praised for making a good- faith effort to make a big agreement deal with this issue. on a personal level, are you
disappointed that this moment seems to have gone away, this idea of a big agreement that would truly deal with the deficit? >> we have been involved in very sincere and honest negotiations and honest discussions. i think the president and i both understand that the nation faces a very difficult decision. there is clearly no personality difference between the president and died. i get along with him fine. this boils down to two things -- i said on saturday night -- the president continues to insist on raising taxes and they are just not serious enough about fundamental entitlement reforms to solve the problem for the near to intermediate future. i want to get there. i want to do what i think is in the right -- the best interest of the country. it takes two to tango. they are not there yet.
>> you talked to the president about a massive big deal, $4 trillion. >> no tax increases were ever on the table. there was never any agreement to allow tax breaks to go off in any discussion i have ever had with the white house, not once. >> the president said he is prepared to take significant heat from his party to get something done. are you no longer willing to take similar heat? >> i understand that this will take sacrifice and it will take political capital on both sides. i am certainly willing to take my fair share of it but if we're going to take political capital, let's step up and do the big thing and the right thing for the country. >> have they overplayed their
hand here? >> what kind of non-tax revenues have been suggested as a compromise? >> as you are very well aware, there was a big conversation under way about ravenous, revenues in the context of lowering rates, broadening the base which would encourage more economic activity and real growth in our economy. would result in additional revenues to the federal government. there is in fact the way to do this. that conversation cannot continue if they are not serious about fundamental reform of the entitlement programs. sorry, sorry, sorry, i've got to go to the white house, thank you. >> that meeting at the white house is started momentarily about the debt talks.
the house is coming in and lawmakers are expected to continue work on the energy and water spending bill for the next fiscal year. live coverage on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, forgiving us another day. we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given. we pray that your spirit of
reconciliation and peace, of goodwill and understanding will prevail on the hearts and in the lives of us all. encourage the members of this house, o god, to use their abilities and talents in ways that bring righteousness to this nation and to all people. ever remind them of the needs of the poor, the homeless or forgotten and those who live without freedom or liberty. may they be instruments of justice for all citizens. may your spirit live in them and with each of us and may your grace surround us and those we love that in all things we may be the people you would have us be in service to this great nation. we -- be all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings
and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from indiana, congressman visclosky. mr. visclosky: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, sadly with the unemployment rate riding -- rising on friday, today's investors business daily lead editorial is correct. with unemployment now at 9.2%
and job growth at a standstill, is there anyone not blinded by ideology or rank partisanship who can't see that obama's spend and regulate plan has been an utter failure? citing the unemployment rate has dipped below 9% in only five of the president's months in office, the verdict is clear. no president since the great depression can match that record of failure. on friday the hill proclaimed the president's campaign responds that people won't vote based on the unemployment rate. i believe that the american people know better. even worse, now liberals are pushing harder for tax increases that will kill jobs, liberals do not understand peoples' incomes belongs to -- belong to them, it does not belong to the government. tax increases hurt small businesses an kill jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war
on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and insert into the record a letter signed by more than 60 of my colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2354. i commend the work of my colleagues, chairman frelling loosen and ranking -- frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky, for their efforts to balance important energy and infrastructure funding in the nuclear energy, army corps of engineers and in particular the office of science. strong funding at d.o.e. is critical for the development of future reactor technologies and licensing for nuclear and small mod later -- mod lar nuclear
power. similarly healthy funding for the corps of army engineers is vital to our waterway, commerce, protection from invasive species and water quality in the midwest. finally, by maintaining our investment in the office of science, congress will preserve our capacity to innovate and enhance our competitive edge in the global economy and create good american jobs well into the future. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to support the office of science and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from louisiana voiced for one minute. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, enough with the backroom dealing on the debt ceiling. the debate has continued for months behind closed doors in the smoke-filled room with nothing to show for the effort.
as a congressman, why should i be forced to per use cable stations and blog sites for information on the discussions? and then be asked to vote for the deal when i have no input and no time to know even what's in it? let's pull back the shades and open the window. let's put the sunlight and fresh air on this discussion. should we cut spending? should we reform entitlements? should we have a balanced budget amendment? mr. speaker, let congress do its job and put the debate right here on the floor. let's do this in the people's house for everyone to see. this will be the way the people and their choice come to fruition. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> mr. speaker, request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. harris: mr. speaker, another week and another week that our
fiscal problems in this country are unsolved. we saw the jobs report, 18,000 jobs created when we need 350,000 jobs created in order to get our unemployment rate back down to 5%. and who can blame our job creators when all the talk in washington now appears to be about how we can raise taxes on those job creators? and i don't care whether we call it expenditures in our tax code or revenues, what they are are taxes on our job creators and our job creators have responded by not creating jobs. mr. speaker, what they want is they want to know that washington understands how to solve this problem. they want to know that we know that we can cut our spending, we can cap our future spending and, mr. speaker, it's time for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. 49 of the 50 states have it, we should have it here in washington. so that we never have to face again the question of how high
to raise our debt ceiling and how far to put our children in debt. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor gainesville, georgia, for earning a spot in the top 100 best cities for job growth in 2011. now this award is a testament to the small business owners and the entrepreneurs in gainesville who work hard every day to innovate, and to grow, despite the pressures put on them from washington in this challenging economic climate. to make the top 100, the city of gainesville was measured on recent growth as well as growth of the last five years. driving the success were the entrepreneurs who created 34 new businesses or grew existing ones, they collectively brought in 1,140 new jobs to gainesville and nearly $250 million in
capital investment. i'm proud to represent gainesville in congress and proud of the hard work of my neighbors in georgia and today the city of gainesville stands a little bit taller because of the rd work of the entrepreneurs in north georgia. brave brave thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? does the gentleman have a general leave request? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 2354 and
that i might include tab lar material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 337 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2354. will the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the
committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2354 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose on friday, all time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair may accord priority and recognition to a member offering an amendment who has caused it to be printed in the designated place in the congressional record. those amendments will be considered read. the clerk will read. the clerk: be it enacted that the following sums are promoted for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, namely title 1, corps of engineers, civil
department of the army, corps of engineers civil, appropriations shall be expended for altogether raised -- authorized functions pertaining to rivers and harbors, flood and stormage reduction and related efforts. investigations, $104 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. page 3, line 5, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $1 million. increase by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment that decreases the line item by $1 million and then increases it by $1 million is the particle men tailor approved method by which we direct some intent into this appropriation legislation that we have. and as a lot of the world knows
by know and as i viewed from this morning as it was getting light as we took off from the omaha airport, we have water that is a mile to as wide as 11 miles wide and that's just getting to missouri and it may well be wider down through missouri. the missouri river itself, which was -- it flooded in 1952 and in that year it was -- the last flood they hoped for all time, they built a program, that's six dam notice upper missouri river, and the corps of engineers, the construction of those was designed to prevent a flood of similar magnitude of 1952. what happened is that in 1952, for a while this year they had the largest amount of water to flow down the missouri river, it came down in 1952 in april and that was 13.2 million acre feet of water. in may of this year it got -- coming out of the missouri river it was 10.5 million aircraft of feet of water and one might
think we can deal with that. we cannot. when this water is going to stay up now for another month or longer. and we got the records from june of this year and that became not 13.2 but 13.8 million acre feet, more water in a single month than to ever come down the missouri river since we've been keeping records and, mr. chairman, that's just two months and this continues. this year will be the largest volume of water to go down the missouri river since they've been keeping records. mr. dicks: we don't have a copy of the gentleman's amendment. we're going to start out this way, without -- mr. king: mr. chairman, i might point out i didn't yield. mr. dicks: we'd like to have a copy of the amendment. mr. king: i'll personally deliver it to you. this version is -- the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman.
this year we'll see more water come down the missouri river than ever before in recorded history and the result is the corps of engineers is releasing 160,000 cubic feet per second from the gavins point dam, that's the lowest of the six dams. what it brings about is a massive flooding all the way down the river for a sustained period of time. now i'm not here to talk are take issue with the design, the engineering or the management of this river, but what this amendment does is it takes $1 million out and puts $1 million back in and what i'm asking is to direct the comp engineers to conduct a new study and come back and let us know how they would have had to manage this river in the event that they had been able to see this massive amount of water coming, how they would have been able to protect not only all the people downstream from each of these reservoirs but also the additional component of that is that although a year ago last may we had record flooding in the tributaries downstream from
the gavins point, the dam that's the lowest we need to be able to look at two catastrophic events, all of this snow runoff and rain that we got particularly in montana in the mountains, coupled with the record rainfall coming down the tributaries from below gavins point dam, that we saw a year ago last may, those two laid on top of each other, how do do they have to manage the reservoirs for the purposes of protecting all of that valuable real estate and infrastructure and my constituents have spent millions of dollars to try to protect themselves, they have built miles of levee watching the water come down the river, they've hauled dirt with water coming up on one side of the levee, mr. speaker, and so this amendment urges and actually directs the corps of engineers to commence with that study and we'll have more information that unfolds. i urge its adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: jab. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: we have not had a chance to study the
implications of the gentleman's amendment. first of all we would like to extend our sympathy to our gentlemen, to his constituents, and to many members of congress and those afacted by the devastation in many cases loss of life, loss of income, livelihood. but we are not quite sure what $1 million in and $1 million out means. we need a little more time to further investigate. would the gentleman be willing to work with us to accomplish this objective without moving ahead with -- on the amendment? would you be willing to work with the committee, the ranking and yours truly to -- mr. king: if the gentleman would yield. i think the chairman has made a
significant point here. and sometimes we are playing catch-up. i would like to have had the lead work done so that this information was out for the majority and minority. i think you have seen the water coming down the river. so i would ask this, that if we are willing to work on this, democrats and republicans, to bring about a review of the master manual management, then i would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: we are highly sympathetic towards working with the gentleman. look forward to working with him to address this crises and what he's talking about, future crises and devastation. >> mr. chairman would yield. i would be happy to work with the chairman, but i would note we are on page 3 of the bill and would hope that as we proceed today and into the future, that we have advance notice of amendments. i would direct my comments in this case to the gentleman at iowa and those who may be thinking about additional amendments. mr. frelinghuysen: reclaiming my time.
the chair: does the gentleman from iowa seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment? mr. king: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk: page 3, line 13, construction, $1.615,941,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by
mr. tierney of massachusetts, page 3, line 24. after the dollar amount, insert increased by $133,822,000. page 6, line 6, after the dollar amendment, increase by $51,759,000. page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $92,790,500. page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $92,790,500. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman from massachusetts recognized for five minutes. mr. tierney: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is relatively straightforward. it ensures two important army corps of engineer accounts, construction and operation and maintenance, will be funded at
last year's level. i certainly understand that the committee was challenged by the allocation it was allotted and that was $1 billion below fiscal year 2011 and nearly $6 billion less than the president's request. despite that, i appreciate the chairman's added $195 million to the president's budget request for the army corps of engineers, he's to be commended for that. unfortunately i think that congress can and must do better. according to the army corps, we have 59 ports and harbors that carry about 90% of our economic activity in this country. 2.2 billion tons of cargo and $1.4 trillion in commerce. in testimony before the senate committee last year, an official for the united states chamber of commerce discussed the importance of our ports, inland and coastal waterways, to america's businesses. this is what the official said. he said the business community from ports to agriculture exporters depends on marine transportation system to move
goods to domestic and international markets. they are also important parts of the nation's economic engine and are drivers for job creation in america. maintaining our federal chags charges to their authorized required depension mentions -- dimensions is required. yet we continue to have significant dredging backlog and i'm concerned this bill's allocation for the army corps is insufficient to appropriately address that backlog. it doesn't just affect commerce, it impacts people's lives as well. i hear from constituents in my district, particularly those in the plum island, who tell me their homes are quite literally about to fall into the oceans unless the army corps can rehabilitate a jetee that hasn't been retared -- jetty that hasn't been repaired in 40 years. we must ensure important army corps programs are funded at last year's level. the subcommittee allocation makes it difficult for members to address. i understand that, taking care of perceived deficiencies in the
bill are going to need attention. i expect there will be some concerns which i'm willing to address in my further comments. for now i'm happy to withhold and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve the balance of his time. does the gentleman -- mr. terny: -- mr. tierney: either congress can fund this by making modest reductions to two department of energy programs that when combined receive more than $1 billion in this bill, or congress can choose to sustain the level of commitment to the army corps and slightly reduce the department of energy fossil fuel energy research and development and the nuclear energy programs. i think it's a relatively easy call. for my constituents it certainly is. congress should be on the side of increasing its investments and repairing and modernizing its modern water infrastructure and putting people back to work. sport for this amendment will
ensure we don't diminish our commitment to these critical army corps functions. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman from new jersey, for what purpose does he rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment and move to strike the last word. continue to reserve. my point of order. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i share -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our nation's water infrastructure and the good work of the army corps of engineers. we well understand on the committee the economic benefits of spending money on these needs. at the same time, we cannot ignore the importance of addressing our nation's deficit problem. and other priorities in the bill, namely national defense and scientific innovation. the underlying bill balances these important goals in part by
reducing the construction account from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, but not by nearly as much as that account was reduced in the president's own fiscal year 2012 budget request. with this level of funding, we are working to reduce the deficit, funding our national defense needs, supporting scientific innovation, and at the same time allowing the corps to continue progress on the most critical water resources investment. we must preserve the careful balance that this bill strikes. therefore i must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. i continue to reserve my point of order. the chair: the gentleman yields back. continues to reserve his point of order. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from new jersey is
recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'd like to assert my point of order. mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentleman may state his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2 of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule. to be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 20-f of rule 21 an amendment must not be propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. because the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, it may not avail itself of
clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? the clerk: amendment offered by mr. -- amendment number 29, offered by mr. turner of ohio. mr. turner: mr. chairman, i offer this amendment and -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. i intend to offer this amendment and then request unanimous consent for its withdrawal. this amendment would restore funding to most critical and historically underfunded portions of this bill, the defense activities of the department of energy that's carried out by the semiautonomous national security
administration, n.s.a. i thought it was important to offer this amendment so the record of the discussion of this bill could focus also on the importance of funding shortfalls that are occurring in this bill. the amendment would restore $241 million to n.s.a. defense activities, our nuclear weapons activities, with an offset from two water project catch-all funds in the corps of engineers' account were not requested by the president. this restoration is critical important to modernize our nuclear enterprise. i encourage my colleagues to the charts that depict the cuts in the programs. the fiscal year 2012 defense appropriations bill as reported by the appropriations committee, cut department of defense spending by 1% below the president's request. the f.y. 2012 energy and water bill, cuts it by 10%, including a 7% cut for nuclear weapons activities and nuclear
modernization. again there's only a 1% cut that is occurring as policy to d.o.d., as you can see n.s.a., a defense activity, is being cut by -- nuclear weapons activities by 7. meanwhile the energy and water bill increases spending on water projects by over 4% of the budget request and that's leaving aside the $1 billion energy supplemental for water projects to address funding on the mississippi river. the problem is that nuclear weapons spending is considered part of the energy and water appropriations bill instead of defense appropriations. the funds cut from n.s.a. support critically needed nuclear modernization efforts that are strongly supported by people on both sides of the aisle, both sides of this capitol, and the administration. i would like to yield time at this point to dr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the amendment being offered by the gentleman from ohio which would restore a modest 20% of over $1.1 billion in funding.
this bill cuts from the defense activities of the department of energy which ensures the safety, security, and reliability of our nation's nuclear weapons. the f.y. 2012 energy and water appropriations bill sharply reduces overall funding for the national security -- national nuclear security administration from the president's budget request by more than 10%. or $1.1 billion. while increasing funding for army corps of engineers water projects by 4% above the budget request. this is in addition to the $1 billion plusup in the emergency supplemental disaster relief added to the bill for mississippi river flooding. as a member who represents louisiana, i can appreciate how critical funding for the army corps of engineers is. but we have to consider those priorities in light of the vital need to maintain our national security which since the end of world war ii has rested on the strength of our strategic nuclear deterrent. the reduction set forth in this measure would significantly impact n.s.a.'s ability to
implement the goals and policies established in the april 2010 nukelar review and our nation's nuclear modernization plans. most concerning is a $498 million cut that this bill makes to the weapons activity account which provides the necessary technical support to ensure safety, security, and effectiveness of the u.s. nuclear deterrent. this bill also places at risk the timely replacement of cold war era nuclear infrastructure, specifically the construction of the nation's plutonium capability at los alamos. the chemistry and metallurgy replacement facility cut by $100 million out of the $300 million necessary for the f.y. 2012 activities. mr. speaker, at a time when major defense spending cuts a -- are on the horizon, we can ill afford to undercut our nation's last line of defense which has always been our nuclear deterrent. i strongly urge support of this amendment. i yield back to the gentleman from ohio. .
the chair: the gentleman from hoo ohio is recognized. >> this house has three times previously confirmed our commitment to fully funding the n.s.a. activities. i would urge that as we go through the process of this bill, this funding be restored. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tierney of massachusetts. page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $133,822,000. page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount insert increased by $51,7 59,000. page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $133,822,000. page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert reduce by
$92,790,500. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to thank the chairmental. mr. chairman, this is a revised amendment that deals with the objection raised by the chairman of the previous amendment that was proposed on this matter. it still gets to the fundamental issue here that we need to restore the army corps of engineers budget through the construction and maintenance accounts to the point of at least where it was at fiscal year 2011. we have serious issues confronting our economy. this is a way to make sure the corps has the resources it needs to deal with numerous issues at port, deeming with our economy, moving the cargo and essentially putting people to work. mr. tierney: also protecting the homes and the welfare of people who live a long ways that need dredging or jetees repaired that
haven't been repaired for decade after decade. while i understand that the chairman has a difficult role and opportunity who is limited due to the amount of money that was allocated for him on this committee and i respectfully tried to do, speaking i think we have choices to make here and those choices are to protect the interests of people, to make sure we get people back to work, to give the army corps the resources they need and reducing other accounts by a minimal amount so we affect our purposes without causing too much destruction of programs that other people may favor on. that with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment but i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for -- the chair: continue to reserve his point of order? mr. frelinghuysen: yes, i do. i rise in opposition. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment for the same reasons i did for his earlier amendment. we worked hard to preserve a
careful balance that our bill strikes but i appreciate his effort, i recognize his commitment to this type of work and when we have a better allocation in the future, maybe we'll be able to be of more assistance. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from indiana. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise -- i do not know if a point of order will be insisted upon, i dobt know if it will be prevailed upon, but would want to make the comment relative to the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. i agree with everything that mr. tierney has said and more during committee and during the general debate on this floor. i mentioned in the 2009 report
card on america's infrastructure, the american society of civil engineers estimated an investment shortfall of $2.2 trillion that is necessary to bring our nation's infrastructure up to good condition. mr. visclosky: additionally the engineering society gave our nation's dams, levees and inland waterways a d or d-my news. -- d-minus. i want to use my time because we have had a lot of discussion and i've joined in that discussion about the inadequate allocation that the subcommittee has been given. i would also point out that there is another failure and that is the budget request itself and the subcommittee has taken note of that on page 13 of their report by stating that the budget request by the president represents a level of investment as with previous budget requests that is not reflective of the corps' importance to the
national committee, jobs or our -- economy, jobs or international competitiveness. and further the committee urges the amendment -- administration to take into point, while developing this budget request, the extraordinary economic benefits of the project's historically -- projects historically funded in the corps accounts which jives with exactly the points that the gentleman from massachusetts has said. so i am in agreement with the gentleman. this is woefully inadequate, the administration bears a blame here as well but i also must add my voice to the chairman's and respectfully -- chairmen and respectfully oppose the amendment because we have in -- we are in a tight situation with this bill and would prefer that the amendment not be adopted despite the relevance of it and the correctness of the gentleman's position from massachusetts and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey.
mr. frelinghuysen: i withdraw my point of order. the chair: the point of order is withdrawn. is there further debate on the amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rivera of florida. page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount insert increased by $32,724,000. page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert reduce by
$32,724,000. the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. rivera, is recognized for five minutes. mr. rivera: thank you. i wish to thank chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky along with committee staff for crafting this legislation. the florida everglades is one of our nation's greatest treasures. the everglades' question nation -- combination of moisture, rich soil and subtropical temperatures support a vast array of species. however flood control and reclamation efforts in the 1940's and 1950's manipulated the everglades' high droll ji, redirecting freshwater destined for the everglades out to sea. the ecosystem has changed because it now receives less water during the dry season and more during the rainy season. it is also harmed by degraded water quality, pollutants from urban areas and agricultural runoff. including pest side and excess
nutrients such as nitrogen which have harmed plant and animal populations. the programs under the corps of engineers' south florida ecosystem restoration will capture freshwater destined for the sea. the life blood of the everglades. and direct it back to the ecosystem to revitalize it and protect plants and wildlife. however, everglades restoration is not only about the ecosystem's restoration, it is also about boosting florida's economy. according to a study by atlanta-based economics, boosting strained water supplies associated with restoration efforts will save local water treatment facilities $13 billion in the long-term. it will provide flood control for south florida and improve local home values by an estimated $16 billion.
furthermore a healthier water supply which will contribute to better fishing grounds will have a huge positive impact on tourism traffic which is a key aspect of florida's economy. everglades restoration is a huge priority for the florida congressional delegation and i respectfully ask the committee and chairman for their continued support in protecting and restoring this great natural resource and economic engine. at this time i would yield to the gentleman from new jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i appreciate the gentleman from florida for yielding. i appreciate mr. rivera's passion for the everglades restoration and that of the entire florida delegation which continues to move forward in this bill. the committee dedicated 8% of the entire corps construction budget to the ever demradse,
making it one of three -- everglades, making it one of three allocations in title 1. so i say to the gentleman that we will continue to work with the florida delegation on this important issue, knowing how committed they are to it and when we have additional resources we hope to be able to consider them. be happy to yield to the ranking member on the committee. mr. dicks: the restoration of the florida everglades has been one of our five national priorities and i too want to compliment the gentleman for his support. we move forward with the bridge and other important projects and this is a program of national significance and i concur with the chairman. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida controls the time. mr. rivera: reclaiming my time, thank you, mr. chairman, for your commitment. i look forward to working with you and the rest of my colleagues on a bipartisan fashion to achieve the goal of
restoring water flow in these areas. at this time i ask for a unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to express deep disappointment and concern about the severe proposed cut in this bill to the everglades ecosystem restoration effort. the energy and water bill before us today slashes $32 million from the administration's request. these times of tight budgets certainly call for belt tightening but cutting 20% from the requested amount for everglades restoration is draconian. it is wildly disproportion at to the more modest 3% cut in the bill to the overall fiscal year 2012 corps of engineer construction fund from fiscal year 2011 levels. i thank my colleague, congressman rivera, for joining me and other members of the florida delegation to urge this full funding be restored to this
important national priority as mr. dicks just mentioned. i hope we can work together with chairman frelinghuysen to make this happen during conference with the senate. to be sure, everglades restoration is a priority the florida congressional delegation takes very seriously and we have fought for adequate undering -- funding every year. continued investment in everglades restoration protects our water supply and enhances our quality of life. a recent study showed that there is a 4-1 return on investment for everglades restoration projects. the everglades is a source of water for millions of residents and visitors in south florida. it is a haven for fishing, hunting and boating activities and home to scores of endangered species. there is no other ecosystem in the world like our everglades, a true national treasure and important resource. i would ask the chairman of the subcommittee to clarify certain language in the committee's report that we find deeply disturbing. i hope this language does not
signal the committee's intent to de-emphasize the importance of everglades restoration in the future. in particular the language refers to an inability to sustain funding levels and seems to say that the committee views everglade funding to be inequitable, as if the everglades has been receiving too much somehow. i hope i'm interpreting the language incorrectly. i hope the committee is not announcing that the everglades is somehow being deemed as not being a national priority and will not continue to be singled out for cuts in funding from now on. because make no mistake about it, the everglades is a national treasure and has been a national priority, as chairman dicks pointed out, for the federal government since we created the comprehensive everglades restoration plan in 2000. . a number of years ago members came together with the executive branch and partnered with the state of florida to embarked upon the largest restoration effort on earth. we understood it wouldn't be easy but it had to be done. the plan spans three decades and
has over 60 component projects and will take resolve and sustained commitment to see this project through to completion. the plan was spearheaded by esteemed senators from around the nation and both political parties, republican bob smith from new hampshire, republican dave hobson of ohio, democrat max bachus from montana. congressman shaw said it perfectly right here on the floor a decade ago when he said, mr. speaker, it is remarkable to have this broad cross section of americans supporting legislation on any single issue, but protection of the everglades is a national priority because most persons speak of this national treasure in the same breath and the red wood forest, the appalachian trail, or grand canyon. i couldn't agree more. and presidents clinton, bush, and now president obama share this commitment. in 2001 president george w. bush said, i quote, this area needs our protection and i am here to join with your governor in the
cause of preserving and protecting the florida everglades. for its part the federal government carries important responsibilities and stew -- stewardship. it is not enough to regulate and dictate from afar. to preserve places like this we must bring to our work a new spirit of respect and cooperation. again i couldn't agree more. history is important. so are the words that we use or do not use. that is why i'm deeply disappointed the chairman has refused so far to state publicly that everglades restoration is a national priority. i would note that the chairman speaking on the energy and water bill for fiscal year 2005 stood here on june 24, 2004, and referred to his own local port and harbor dredging and deepening project as a national priority. having several ports in south florida i would agree on the significance of navigation infrastructure, but surely the evergrades glades, and unique national treasure, rises to the same level. we need to look beyond our own state borders and districts when we shape our priorities as our predecessors did. i hope the chairman will see fit to stand with us now and
recommit to everglades restoration as a national priority. thank you i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the the gentlewoman from florida yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. kwloip amendment offered by mr. graves of missouri. page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $1,750,000. page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount insert increased by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, basically what i'm trying to do here is point out the absurdity and misalignment of priorities which has become clear in this appropriations bill. i live along the missouri river in missouri and we have families that have been inundated by the
flooding that has taken place this year with no real end in sight to be quite honest with you. it provides $73 million for the missouri river recovery program which is used to fund habitat creation projects. unfortunately the underlying bill only provides slightly more than $6 million for the maintenance of levees all the way from sioux city, iowa, to the mouth of the missouri where it meets the mississippi. essentially we are spending nearly 12 times more to buy land for the betterment of fish and birds than we are to protect farms, businesses, and homes being flooded right now. this year many levees in missouri have been breached as a result of the amount of water and mismanagement of the river. many people in my district who have been evacuated will remain so for months. the president has issued an emergency declaration for parts of missouri, yet here we are spending again $73 million for fish and wildlife, and mere $6 million for the maintenance of the levee. while i believe conservation is important, we should not
overlook what we sometimes sacrifice to achieve for conservation. in this case we are sacrificing the livelihoods of businesses and farmers and destroying homes. again, my amount just simply transfers money from the construction account to the operation and maintenance account. the intent is just to reduce funding in one and increase that funding in another. with that i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve the balance of his time. does the gentleman yield back? mr. graves: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from missouri yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment although i am -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition but i'm very sympathetic to those that have been devastated by floods in missouri and other states across the nation. and it's a very personal thing for many congress and -- who look to their congressional
districts and see the loss of life and livelihoods and jobs and devastation to family farms and to small towns. one of the things we did in our bill, of course, and i'm sure the gentleman recognizes, we came up with $1 billion of emergency aid which hopefully will be of assistance. i know he doesn't speak of that in this amendment, but certainly all members of congress on both sides of the aisle are committed to help those whose lives have been unalterably changed because of the devastation. my concern with his amendment is that the corps has set this construction fund something necessary to avoid jeopardy under the endangered species act. if the river system jeopardizes species, it could have great effect on the operations of the river. so speaking to my point where we want to be helpful, but we also look to the corps for some
direction on this point. and as a consequence i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i emphasize the word reluctantly because i do understand the devastation that has been suffered, would emphasize for the record that the chairman recognized the tragedies that have occurred and had an amendment in committee to have $1 billion setaside. earlier in the process we had essentially about $1 billion also transferred from the energy and water appropriation bill to the homeland security bill for very similar purposes. there is no denying the emergency. but as i said, i'm -- on more than one occasion during the debate of this issue, it is time we as an institution have the intestinal fortitude to understand we have natural disasters, people who have lost
their lives, people who are suffering and lost property. we need in a deliberate, thoughtful fashion to set those moneys aside. as opposed to if you would moving moneys from accounts to take care of these emergencies. so i do understand also looking ahead that the ultimate cost to the tragedy that the gentleman's constituents and others have suffered is probably going to exceed the moneys that have been setaside in this bill and do hope, again, institutionally, we address that problem. i understand the motive, agree with the principle that is espoused, but would have to reluctantly join in opposition to the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. graves: i ask for recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from missouri will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the chairman would inform the gentleman from louisiana we have not reached that point of the reading yet. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 5, line 3, mississippi river and tributaries, $210 million. operation and maintenance, $ 2,366,465,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise?
of a amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $6,360,000. page 8, line 16, after the dollar amount, i sert reduce by $6,360,000. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the amendment. we would like a copy of the amendment, please. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from nng new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: to reserve a point of order. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. we have provided copies to the desk of the amount. what it does, this is a bipartisan amendment, worked on with mr. richmond and others, this amendment deals with dredging. we have seen over the last few months a shift in the corps of
engineers' policy. in years past they have always reprogrammed millions of dollars, in many cases tens of millions of dollars from other areas within their agency because they inadequately had initially funded dredging of our water ways. of course this is the lifeblood to moving commerce throughout not only much of our country but as we export to other countries throughout the world. for whatever reason the corps made an internal decision earl -- earlier this year they would no longer do the reprogramming which jeopardizes a number of the mosts along our waterways. this amendment is revenue neutral, doesn't add anything to the cost of the bill what, it does it takes money out of the general administration bill which saw an increase this year, moves it over into the general operations and maintenance of -- section of the bill so it allows us at least additional revenues to go and properly dredge our waterways. why is this important? number one, it's a critical jobs issue.
because as we just saw a few weeks ago, prior to some of the record levels of flooding, mr. chairman, we saw they had to roll back just in my region of new orleans area, they had to roll back some of the depth that they were allowed to transport on the mississippi river. this cost over -- about $1 million per vessel. added cost to move commerce throughout our country. not only does that cost jobs but also increases the cost of goods for americans who buy those products but also increases the cost of exporting and it makes our american companies less competitive in the world. and of course right now this congress, the president, we are working together to try to reach trade agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea. and i support more trade, free-throw, the ability for more american -- free-throw -- free trade, to create more jobs in america. if we do that we got to have the proper dredging going on to allow for that commerce along
our waterways. so if the corps is allowed to go through with their policy of no more reprogramming, we know from what they have said, we know from what history has shown us, that in years past they didn't have adequate amounts in their operations and maintenance for dredging so they have reprogrammed every year for years now that's been going on and they have said this year they are no longer going to do it. so we would be sitting in a situation where we have to wait until some of our water ways are shut down or until you saw vessels grounded like we saw a few weeks ago. just in the new orleans area, because of their lack of dredging. then we would lose more jobs. we would lose our ability to export more. what we are saying is there is additional money in this fund, in the general administration fund. we know this is a looming problem if we don't address it. so let's move it somewhere where it will actually help us create jobs and remain competitive and hopefully as those trade agreements move through congress, where we now have more opportunities as those trade agreements move through, to trade even more and create more
jobs in america than our ability to move those goods through our water ways, we would still be there, because they won't if we are not properly dredging our waterways. this amendment addresses that problem and it's a problem we know is coming because the corps themselves have said this is looming. let's address it head-on. not wait until it is a crisis until we do something about it. that's why i bring the amendment, with bipartisan support. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. does the gentleman from new jersey continue to reserve his point of order? mr. frelinghuysen: yes, i do. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, unfortunately and reluctantly i must oppose the gentleman from louisiana's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i share the gentleman's concern for sufficiently maintaining our waterways as necessary to realizing the national economic benefits of efficient cargo
transportation. representing, as i do, part of new jersey nng, which is highly dependent on the port of new york and message message, i'm well aware that navigation and money for navigation and dredging is absolutely essential. and i'm highly sympathetic to the gentleman from louisiana for all of the historic things that have impacted louisiana's economy and so many people down there. in fact, a major factor in developing the recommendation for the army corps of engineers' budget this year was to focus proportionally more funds on the projects and activities that contribute most to the economy and job creation, including dredging and other navigation improvements. . the up-to-date lying bill does not include, as we're -- the underlying bill does not include, as we're aware, any earmarks. oftentimes these issues were dealt with through the earmark process. rather our bill provides the army corps of engineers the
flexibility to allocate program funds to those navigation and flood control projects that it deems most critical. and we have the ability as individual members of congress to help the corps focus on what we feel is most critical for their attention. the corps is required to report to congress in our bill within 45 days of enactment on which projects were deemed most critical and why. navigation deeds are not the only important issues addressed in our bill, however. increased funding for this program line even further would upset the careful bag balance of priorities that i've spoken of earlier, including national defense which is a major component of why we even have a department of energy and nuclear safety. energy inso heowvation and of course the great work of the army corps, the water resources
deeds. so therefore i must oppose the gentleman's amendment. and withdraw my point of order. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his point of order. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise in support of my colleague from across the aisle's amendment. in fact, my colleague from across town, in our great state of louisiana. not only is this amendment on time, it's on target in terms of job creation and job retention in our great country. the current cargo activity at the port of new orleans alone generates $2.8 billion in federal taxes. mr. richmond: the future and livelihood of farmers and manufacturers in 30 states that depend on the mississippi river to get their goods to market, that's 60% of all u.s. grain exports in this country flows through the port of new orleans. our industrial heartland desperately needs the
mississippi river, the steel, rubber, copper, aluminum and lumber that they need to use in manufacturing comes up the mouth of the mississippi. so, although it's two colleagues from the great state of louisiana, we're not here specifically talking about one thing that's important to louisiana. this is important to 30 states in this country, it's important to the entire country. according to customs, 85 -- $85 billion to $104 billion a year is attributed to trade through the mississippi river. so when you talk about how we keep this country going, how we grow this country, it's through making wise investments and right now in these tough times, the american people want us to use every dollar that we have very wisely and i will say that according to the port of new orleans every dollar that this country spends on dredging the mississippi river, we get a 35-1
return. so the $6.8 million that my colleague from new orleans in the metropolitan area is talking about diverting creates $238 million in this country. i would say what's happening in this country is that we should look at return on investment, we should look at how we spend money wisely to create more income, create more jobs and make this a better country, that's what this amendment does. and for all of my colleagues in those 30 states that depend on the mississippi river, i would just say, think about your farmers, think about all of your industrial employees because they need these goods to come up the river so that they can continue to compete. i will just tell you that if you look at a vessel, the five feet of draft, the difference it would make if we don't draft the mississippi river, would cost us $3.2 million per voyage. that makes us noncompetitive in the world. so they can get their grain from
the united states or they can go to brazil to get their grain and i will just suggest, mr. chairman, if they start going to brazil to get their grain then they will never come back to the great country that we live in. so we have to use our money wisely. i think this is a very prudent use of $6.8 million and that the american people, if they knew they could spend $6.8 million to generate $238 million, everybody would support it and that would be the reason why i would ask my colleagues to support it and, mr. chairman, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: mr. chairman, i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed.
for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bishop of new york. page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount insert increase by $33,535,000. page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $33,535,000. the chair: the gentleman from new york is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment increase -- increases the operation and maintenance account by $35 million in line with the o.n.m. budget. my amendment offsets this amount in the fossil energy or indeed account by the same ability consist went the president's f.y. 2012 budget request. mr. chairman, as our nation continues to climb out of the
hole left behind from the great recession, congress must focus on funding programs that create jobs and encourage economic growth. as the ranking member on the water resources and environment subcommittee of the transportation and infrastructure committee, it is clear to me just how important it is to ensure that our water infrastructure assets remain safely, reliable and efficient to address our goals of encouraging economic prosperity. over the past few years, my subcommittee has held hearing after hearing on the declining condition of our nation's water, transportation corridors, our levees and flood walls and our nation's wastewater infrastructure. countless witnesses have told us that our water-related infrastructure is on the brink of failure and they have specifically warned how the affects of such a failure would devastate our health, safety, prosperity and quality of life. in just the past decade, the corps has had multiple emergency closures of navigation locks on almost every major river system to address infrastructure deterioration. these unscheduled closures
result in significant impacts to the movement of goods and services and as well as impacts shippers and customers alike in terms of higher costs. similarly the lack of available maintenance dredging funding has resulted in reduced and passed over the dredge needs of smaller ports such as ones in my district in long eeled. my -- island. our nation's ports handle 2.5 billion tons of cargo annually. they move imports and exports worth more than $5.5 billion per day. in 2007 ports employed over 13.3 million americans, 9% of the total work force, and those jobs paid $649 billion in wages. $1 billion in exports creates 15,000 new jobs. while ports and the maritime industry keep america open for business, it would seem apparent then that the underfu -- underfunding the mission of the corps of engineers is short sighted for many reasons. first, it has the substantial
negative impact on local economies and the bottom lines of big industries and small businesses alike. second, it puts our families and communities at an increased risk of flooding and damage from coastal storms. third, it delays the potential public and environmental health benefits that come from environmental restoration projects. finally, it places this nation on an unsustainable path where it is forced to rely on an outdated and failing infrastructure to keep the nation going. in light of this -- or in spite of this, in the first six months of the 112th congress, the new house majority has put forward several legislative proposals to cut the funding for the corps to levels not seen since 2004. the most aggressive proposal included as part of h.r. 1 would have cut over $500 billion, about 10%, from an already strained corps budget and it could only result in increased delay in carrying out vital corps projects and increased reliance on using band-aids to remedy critical infrastructure mapet nance issues. similarly this appropriations
bill further reduces the level of funding for the corps by 11.5%, including a remarkable cut of 20.5% from the corps' construction account and additional 32.2% reduction for corps work along the mississippi river. collectively for the hundreds of corps projects around the country, these reductions in funding will result in a growing deficiency in maintenance that will continue to expand until it becomes an emergency. even the lack of viable offsets in bill, my amendment focuses on the corps' account that provides funding to the corps to dredge existing harbors to their congressionally authorized width and depth. mr. chairman, eliminating the funds for operation and maintenance is both penny wise and pound foolish. businesses large and small depend greatly on their ability to move their goods to market by using our nation's waterways. from california importers to minnesota miners, to ohio steel workers to michigan manufacturers, to new york fishermen to louisiana exports,
to illinois farmers to pennsylvania producers, they and great many others depend on efficient water-borne transportation to receive goods, move products to market, create jobs and grow economically. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i continue to reserve my point of order. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i oppose the gentleman's amendment. again, our bill strikes a balance between funding for many competing national priorities in this bill that this amendment would undo. i do and we do support the important work of the army corps of engineers but now that the -- not at the expense of those national priorities, national defense, scientific research, good things in the department of energy. and may i say our mark is considerably more generous for
these purposes than the president's mark. so do give us a little bit of credit. this amendment would cut out -- cut into the fossil energy research program and account nearly $200 million below 2010 budget mark. fossil energy, i think, as we're all aware of, produces nearly 70% of our nation's electricity. and we must invest -- continue to invest to ensure that we use our fossil resources efficiently and clearly. this bill again strikes a careful balance between these priorities and i oppose the amendment and will insist on my oint -- point of order. >> would you yield? mr. frelinghuysen: yes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the position of the gentleman. as again i have pointed out in the past if we look at the need that the gentleman so eloquently
stated it is overwhelming. currently for the top 59 portses in the u.s., the corps is only able to maintain authorized depths within the middle of the channel 33% of the time. i might also add, though, that the chairman noted that the actual moneys contained in this bill, inadequate as they are, is more than the president of the united states asked for. so i do want to remind my colleagues about that fact. it doesn't solve our problem, but it also points to thank administrations past and present have to wake up and recognize that we have to make an investment. i also do believe at this point in time there is a purpose for the moneys the i can has -- the committee has set aside as far as possible research. we do need to learn how to use carbon fuels more cleanly, we have to learn how to use them more efficiently, as we also look for a broader mix of energy policy in this country. also very ruckly contaminantly i
would have to oppose -- reluctantly i would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. i appreciate the chairman yielding. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: on my point of order. the chair: will the gentleman state his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2, rule 21, because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair will rule. to be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21, an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. because the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york propose a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations it may not avail itself of
clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will report the amendment -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. woodall of georgia. page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $4,900,000. page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert increase by $4,900,000. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: we don't have a copy of the gentleman's amendment. mr. woodall: i have a copy there. i have a copy at the desk and i regret the ranking member didn't get one earlier but i'd be happy to speak to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr.
chairman. my amendment moves to strike from the operation and maintenance account all dollars for global warming project planning. i know the committee put a lot of effort into this particular section of the bill, plusing it up almost $1 million over 2011 levels, up $52 million from 2012 requests. i come from a county, my primary care, depends entirely on a court order project for all our drinking water, not to mention recreation and economic development and on and on. i want the corps to succeed. what i'm concerned is about those silos being created in government today, mr. chairman. this body in the early 1970's would have been talking about the calamity we face with the global cooling, and here we are today with a special budget line item with global warming for the corps of engineers. we have a great deal of global
warming money going into our department of interior, going into the environmental protection agency. the corps, at its core, is a construction agency. certainly this account provides for operations and maintenance for anything that might come up along those lines. but rather than creating this silo to focus specifically on global warming issues in these tough economic times when we have so many corps projects that are so lacking in funding, my amendment would strike this account in its entirety at $4.9 million and transfer that money to a deficit reduction account. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back his time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i move to strike the last
word. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman, and i rise in opposition to this amendment. this attack on science, this attack on the need to learn more about the science of climate change, more about the impacts which this changing global environment is having upon our planet is just once again a direct attack upon the reality that the planet is warming and in parts of the planet, the arctic, subis he hairan africa -- subsaharan africa, dangerously slow. the role is like the role that paul revere played. the scientists are saying
climate change is coming. it's intensifying. it can do great harm to our planet and to the security interests of our planet. and so this amendment basically strikes right at what it is that the rest of the world expects our country to be which is the leader on science. and if we look at it in the totality -- mr. woodall: will the gentleman yield? mr. markey: where they cut the funding for solar, for wind, for energy efficiency, for geothermal, for biomass, for plug-in hybrids, for all-electric vehicles, it's all part of a pat he were where they slash the -- pattern where they slash the budgets of the programs that can help deal with the impact of global warming. in this same bill, increasing the budget for oil and coal and
gas, that which is creating this global warming, the man-made gases that we know are dangerously warming the planet. so the green generation, the young generation look on at this debate and say, how account republicans cut wind and solar in the same budget that they are then going to defund the studies that basically help us to forecast, to deal with, to analyze the impact of global warming and climate warming on our planet? so i urge a no vote, and i yield to the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would join in his objection to the amendment that is offered. i happen to believe that we have climate change. others will debate that, and i would set aside that debate for the moment and simply recognize the obvious and say, we have had significant variations in
weather patterns in the united states of america. we have had horrific flooding in the midwest this past year, and that flooding has huge impacts on the reservoirs that are managed by the army corps of engineers. i think it is not correct public policy to not proceed with the study as to how climate and weather patterns affect those very important corps projects and appreciate the chairman rising in objection. mr. markey: as a matter of fact -- the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts controls the time. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: i yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: i healed hearings when i was the chairman of the committee, brought in the federal agencies and every one of them testified they could already see signs of the effects of climate change. one was a longer fire season.
one was more drought. one was more variations in weather, and most importantly to the corps of engineers that the seas are rising at a rate more rapidly than at any time in the last 3,000 years. this is serious stuff that affects the planet. i'm glad the chairman took time to be here. i yield back. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. we've had 11 three and four-star generals and admirals testifying we need an assessment of the defense implications of global warming around the planet and we have done that for the pentagon. we have done that for the national security agency at their request. they believe it's real. they believe it has real implications for the defense of our country where we might have to project. the same thing is true domestically, however. the same thing is true in how we have to protect our own
people because of rising rivers, because of increased drought, because of the melting of the arctic, because villages are floating in the oceans up in alaska because of the melting tundra. these are things that affect us here in the united states today, and to say, no, we're going to defund all aspects pekts of that is a mistake. i yield, again, to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: if the gentleman will yield. there is another aspect of this that people don't recognize and that is ocean acidification which is upon us. a significant amount of carbon dioxide goes into the oceans, and that's why getting a handle on this and trying to control co-2 emissions is so important, and when it goes into the ocean
it has a negative affect on coral, it has a negative effect on oysters. there is the plank ton which is the crucial element for salmon, 60% of the food for salmon, if the acidity rate gets too high, if the p.h. rate goes high and the acidity drops, those fish will be adversely affected. i will yield to the gentleman from massachusetts and then i'll yield to the gentleman. mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman. mr. markey: this is science. this is undeniable. this is what the green generation keeps screaming at our generation -- are you going to do anything about it? are you going to put a plan in place to deal with it? and with their budget today says is, no, we're slashing the wind budget, the solar budget, the plug-in hybrid budget, the all-electric vehicle budget,
the energy efficiency and conservation budget. we're slashing, slashing, slashing, slashing. and then, to put the cherry on top of the sundae, they say, let's eliminate the money that is with the study of global changing. at the same time they increase the budget for oil, gas and coal. now, if that isn't a budget looking in a rear-view mirror at the technologies that are causing problems, including national security problems for us because of the importation of our oil while not in fact depending on our technological genius. that's what young people in our country wants from us. they want to use the technology to be able to sell the saudis and other people, -- tell the saudis and other people, we don't need their oil. it's not only in our national security but an environmental disaster, which is looming in our country -- mr. dicks: i -- mr. markey: and the republicans
wants to slash -- mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i appreciate the work you've done on this bill. this appropriation, this $4.9 million, isn't about doing the science. you won't see me down here attacking dollars for the science. as the gentleman knows, this is about the maintenance and operation about corps projects dedicated to global warming. if we were talking about the science, then let's talk about the engineers and the folks that will do that corps research. this is not about that. this is about the bricks and mortar, operation that goes on in my district and all across the country, but i'm concerned the visceral reaction that even a discussion of operation and maintenance is up represents why silos of this kind do more harm than good. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. dicks: i thank. the gentleman from
massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: this is in response to glimet change at army corps projects. response to climate change. are we going to be in denial that projects here in the united states aren't going to be affected by climate change, that we are somehow immune of what's happening in the arctic and the sub-saharan deserts of africa? no, we are not. the whole bill is in fact -- mr. dicks: and the gentleman -- if the gentleman will yield back -- mr. markey: i yield back. mr. dicks: and i worry how many people live on the coast of this country who could be directly impacted by rising sea levels and the seas have gone up more rapidly in this last 50 years than it has in the last 3,000 years. i mean, somebody's got to take this seriously. obviously there are some on the other side who are in denial. the gentleman said it quite correctly, they don't believe this is real. it is real. mr. markey: will the gentleman
yield? mr. dicks: i yield. mr. markey: we had a debate on the everglades. it is a perfect example of where over the next 20 to 50 years climate change will have a profound impact on an entire state. and this amendment is just part of the denial as is the evis ration, the anay lakes of solar and all-electric vehicle that is being cut out. mr. dicks: if they don't take into account corps of engineer projects on the possibility that the seas are going to rise, i mean, this could be catastrophic. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: ask for a recorded vote? mr. woodall: yes, sir. the chair: pursuant to clause 6
of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. courtney of connecticut. page 7, line 15, insert before the period at the end, provided further that an addition there is appropriated $808 million which shall be derived from the harbor maintenance trust fund. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is simple. it would increase the army corps of engineers' operation and maintenance budget by $808 million in 2012. this number is not a random number that is just picked out of the air, mr. chairman. this number represents the
difference between the tax revenue collected through the harbor maintenance tax and the amount of money that's actually being spent out of the harbor maintenance trust fund for the purpose of maintaining dredging in america's harbors. again, for some listeners it might be helpful to understand that in 1986 the congress passed a harbor maintenance tax which is a tax -- it's really a user fee on imported goods coming into america's harbors all across this country, east coast, west coast, again, every -- all across the coastlines of the united states of america. and the purpose of that tax was to create a fund to dredge harbors so that we would have passable waterways that, again, we heard over and over this afternoon is good for the u.s. economy. what's happened since 1986 is the revenue collected through the harbor maintenance tax has gone up at a steady rate, it's gone up 13% in the last year
because there's a lot more imported goods coming into this country. but the funding for actual drenling has been plateaued, it has been at a level pace so that today we have a budget which calls for using only 53% of the harbor maintenance taxes collected for the purposes of dredging america's harbors. this would be like having only 53% of our gas taxes being spent on surface transportation in this country. if morris saw only 53% -- more of us saw only 53% of gas taxes used to maintain roads in this country, will be there would be a revolution because there's again a promise in terms of federal gas taxes that would be used to maintain surface transportation. that was the equivalent idea under the harbor maintenance tax passed in 1986 that it would be used to invest in -- and reinvest in america's harbors. so because we are in fact diverting year in and year out hundreds of millions of dollars out of the harbor maintenance
tax away from its intended purpose we have what we've seen here this afternoon, we heard from members from massachusetts, from new york, louisiana, new jersey, south carolina, i can chime in from connecticut, we've got about $113 million of dredging that is underfunded from bridge port all the way to stonington and i know the gentleman from new jersey is familiar with the fact that we are on the silty side of long island sound where again we have a navy base which requires dredging to keep our tax submarines going in and out of new london, but we also have a maritime economy that depends on having these federal waterways dredged. and the budget that we're going to be passing this year, whether it's the president's budget or whether it's the one that -- the subcommittee has reported out, is clearly inadequate in terms of making sure that our waterways are passable and as we've heard from our members, because of the increase in terms of imports, whether we pass these new free trade agreements or not, the expansion of the
panama canal is going to double the amount of imports brought in by sea to this country and we have a system that is clearly inadequate in terms of dealing with that challenge. now there is legislation pending before the congress, i'm a co-sponser with mr. boustany from louisiana, it's called the ramp act, that's an acronym for restore america's medicare -- sorry, maritime promise act, which is a grandiose title, but it in fact is true. we need to make sure that these harbor maintenance taxes are being directed to their intended purpose when that tax was created in 1986. and what the ramp act will do is basically cordon off this tax revenue so that it is used for the intended purpose that congress meant when it was passed in 1986 and what that will do is it will take pressure off this subcommittee budget year and -- year in and year out, it will deal with this problem which is now probably
even worse than the subcommittee chairman mentioned because earmarks are now a thing of the past in terms of dealing with dredging projects. what it will do is create a stable flow of money into the army corps of engineers' harbor maintenance dredging fund so that all these projects that we have heard about this afternoon, again from one end of the country to the other, are actually going to be paid for. we have over 100 bipartisan co-sponsors, the transportation committee had a hearing this past friday and it does appear that they are going to move forward in terms of adopting the ramp act as part of the transportation authorization bill. this amendment again puts the spotlight on the fact that only 53% of the harbor maintenance tax revenue is being used for its intended purpose and that is the reason why i have offered this amendment. i suspect it will be subject to a point of order but again i think it's important for people to realize there is a way out of this problem that we face as a nation and it's to pass the ramp act. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: move to
strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman reserve his point of order? mr. frelinghuysen: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is no now recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: while i strongly support the gentleman from connecticut's overall intent, i must regretfully oppose his amendment. i share my colleague's concern for sufficiently maintaining our waterways, these waterways contribute significantly to our national economy by providing a means of cost effective cargo transportation. in recognition of the economic benefits of navigation general in the maintenance of dredging specifically the bill before us does provide funds above the president's budget request for navigation needs. $191 million in total and $99 million specifically for the operation and maintenance activities. this funding represents a 12% increase over the president's own budget for navigation. i also agree with the gentleman from connecticut with the idea that if the federal government levees a tax for a specific purpose, the revenue should not be -- should be used for that
purpose. unfortunately the only way to do that at this point would be make substantial reductions in other priorities in our bill. the gentleman's amendment would avoid those difficult decisions by simply not offsetting the additional spending but our debt crisis makes that, too, an untenable option. for these reason, even though i'm very much in support of what he's trying to achieve, which is things for navigation, keep america open for business, i must oppose his amendment and i will insist on my point of order. >> does the gentleman yield? mr. frelinghuysen: i'd be happy to yield. >> i just want to make one objection. mr. visclosky: the gentleman is correct in terms of the maintenance fund. after fiscal year 2012 there will be $6,928,000,000 in the fund. today there are $5,474,000,000 in it. that discrepancy is $1,454,000,000, apparently it
will make the deficit look a bit better but at $1 trillion, who are we feeling -- fooling? certainly no one in the united states of america. the chairman of the committee rightfully pointed out that it is on those who are paying the tax, it is on for the company who wants to make a fair profit and those who might be able to work if we can resolve this problem. i do appreciate the chairman yielding. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman may state his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment proposes a net increase of budget authority in the bill, the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5, 112th congress, which states, and i quote, it shall shal not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget
authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of subsection. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from new jersey makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. section 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. as persuasively asserted by the gentleman from new jersey, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore the point of order is sustained, the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 7, line 16, regulatory program $196 million. formerly utilized sites for
action program $109 million. flood control and coastal emergencies $27 million. expenses $185 million. office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works $5 million. administrative provision, the resolving fund shall be available dur during the fiscal year for purchase of passenger motor vehicles. general provisions, corps of engineers, civil, section 101, none of the funds shall be available for a -- through a reprogramming of funds that initiates a new program. section 102, none of the funds shall be used to implement -- >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman from texas. state his amendment. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, over the last few weeks the house -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas. strike 102. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. the house has voted three times
in favor of striking problematic and anticompetitive a-76 language from h.r. 2017. the department of homeland security appropriations bill and from h.r. -- i'm sorry, 2112, the agriculture appropriations bill. and last week from h.r. 2219 the department of defense appropriations bill. the same change and reversal of bad policy should be adopted in this legislation by striking section 102 from the bill. my amendment would strike section 102 of this legislation which has drafted -- as drafted prohibits the use of any funds in the underlying bill to convert any functions performed by federal government employees to private competition pursuant to a study conducted under o.m.b. circular a-76 or high performing organizations for the army corps of engineers. currently some $850,000 of the $-- 850,000 of the two million
executive branch nonpostal full time and permanent positions are jobs that are commercial in nature. the heritage foundation has reported that subjecting federal employee positionsry are -- which are commercial in nature to -- positions which are commercial in nature to a comparison generate on average a 30% cost savings regardless of which sector wins the competition. according to the americans for tax reform, the average cost of each new federal employee for salary, benefits and pension totals $4.27 million. without competition government-run monopolies of commercial activities duplicate and price out the private sector, resulting in inefficient expenditures of taxpayer money. the requirements outlined in section 102 are unnecessary. rather than preventing market competition that would improve service and lower cost, we
should be encouraging agencies to find the best way to deliver services to citizens of this great nation. the role of government should be to govern, not to operate businesses inside the government. the nation's current unemployment rate is 9.2%. congress must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage and might i also add, an unfair disadvantage to the taxpayer. removing section 102 will allow the private sector just this opportunity. if competition is deemed fair, it really doesn't matter who wins as long as both sides are allowed equal opportunity, the taxpayer should be and i believe would be the ultimate winner. i urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer-first amendment and to ensure cost savings competition is available. i thank you, mr. chairman, and i
yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentleman from indiana. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the gentleman's amendment would strike section 102 of the bill, a provision that prohibits the use of the circular a-76 privatization process and high performing organization process for the army corps of engineers. this is a debate that we have had before this provision enjoys support from both sides of the aisle and has been included in this bill in every year since fiscal year 2008. this provision was originally included to stop an effort to privatize the operation, maintenance and repair of locks and dams. the importance of locks and dams for our nation's economy cannot be understated and any failure to ensure that the nation's waterways remain safe and navigateble will cripple the economy. these operators and mechanics
make vital decisions affecting life, liberty and prove of private persons, -- though no reasonable argument has been made that the locks and dams are overstaffed. additionally the corps undertook a privatization study for their i.t. personnel in 2004. after an expensive and seriously three-year study, the results came back as an in-house win. in general the circular is profoundly flawed. both the government accountability office and the department of defense inspector general have reported that agencies are constantly unable to demonstrate that a-76 studies result in savings and energy agencies fail to consider the significant costs of conducting such studies. there's nothing wrong with attempts to look for efficiencies in the federal work force, that certainly is clear. the run describing processes, i
often think of a phrase often uttered by other colleagues. that dog won't hunt. we need to stop wasting millions of dollars on these expensive competitions that time and again show government employees are a less expensive alternative and i would urge all of my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the gentleman from texas' amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: it would use the a-76 process at its discretion. it's not that anything would be contractted out. i agree with the gentleman that during this time of necessary budget cutting we should allow the agency to -- agencies to evaluate all options and to choose the most cost-effective manner in delivering a project or service. the language should be struck is a carryover provision from
several years ago when there was perhaps too much of an emphasis played on the a-76 process. we're not in the same situation as several years ago as we know, so the provision is unnecessarily restrictive. therefore, i strongly support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, for that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. sessions: i do ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition?
>> i do. i rise to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, only 3% of the water on this planet is fresh water. mr. moran: but that's the water that we depend upon for drinking, for agriculture, for much of our fishing and wildlife habitat. if my amendment to strike section 109 of this bill is not accepted, critical headwater and wetlands that ensure the quality and quantity of our freshwater supply will be lost, lost to the dumping of sewage, to toxic mining materials, to unregulated infill for residential, commercial and industrial development. over the past decade, mr.
chairman, two supreme court rulings have caused confusion by which waters and wetlands should receive protection under the clean water act. as a result, important fish, wildlife, flood protection and filtering waters now lack clear protection under the law, and businesses and regulators face uncertainty and delay as to which waters should fall under federal protection. the corps of engineers and environmental protection agency developed draft guidance this spring to clearly show which waters should be protected, and this guidance does protect clear, more predictable guidelines in accordance with the court's direction. but this bill prohibits that guidance from moving forward this year and every subsequent year. the supreme court did remove some waters from federal
protection, but it left a great deal of confusion over which waters and wetlands should be protected. e.p.a. and the corps of engineers are using an open public process to develop a guidance. published in may and opened through comment in july, the public businesses and states have over three months to let the federal agency know their views. all comments will be considered and made publicly available. it's important to understand what the guidance does not do. this new guidance doesn't change any existing agricultural exemptions or clean water exemptions for normal agriculture, ranching practices continue to apply. the guidance also clearly describes waters that are not regulated under the act, including isolated wetlands, artificially irgaited areas, stock watering ponds, construction-related ponds, swimming pools, washes and gullies.
failing to update the guidance, which is what this bill would do, unless my amendment passes, is not only bad for the environment but it's bad for business. american businesses need to know when the federal government has authority and when it doesn't. without updated guidance, developers have little certainty regarding permits. this uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal penalties and surely will cost them extra money. some also claim that federal regulation is unnecessary because states will protect the same waters under the authority. but state authority to regulate waters in the united states derives directly from federal law. when federal law is unclear, state authority, based on that law, is also unclear. states are still required to implement the law, but they need clarity to be consistent and to avoid lawsuits. some suits may adequately protect clean waters on their own, but not all do. the corps and the e.p.a. must be able to protect water quality irrespective of whether individual states do.
16 different sportsmen groups oppose the prohibition in this bill as do over 100 conservation groups. when wetlands are destroyed and streams are polluted, sportsmen are the ones to be first impacted. hunting and fishing contribute more than $65 billion to the economy, breathing life into rural community and supporting millions of jobs across the country. but these benefits are in jeopardy with this bill. since 2001, safeguards for headwater streams and critical wetlands have steadily eroded. wetlands and tributaries that provide life to the chesapeake way, help retain floodwaters and provide important fish and wildlife habitat are now dengered. these economic and environmental ben -- are now endangered. these economic and environmental benefits are now hurting. some critical waters will be
part of the sewage dumping and industrial pollution. some will be filled in for development. bear in mind, much of the fresh water we depend upon is under the ground but contiguous to waters and streams that our fiscal health and the health of our economy is depended upon. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: a vote for my amendment to strike section 109 . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 11, line 22, section 103. none of the funds may be used to award any contracts beyond the amounts appropriated for that program. section 104, none of the funds shall be used to award any continuing contract that commits additional funding from the inland waterways trust fund. section 105, not later than 90 days after the date of the chief engineer's report the assistant secretary of the army for civil works shall submit the report to the appropriate committees of the congress. section 106, the secretary is
authorized to implement measures recommended to provent aquatic nuisance and species from dispersing into the great lakes. section 107, the secretary is authorized to transfer up to $100 million for reinforcing for replacing flood walls and up to $75 million for projects and measures for the west bank in the vicinity in laverage ponchartrain and vicinity projects. -- lake ponchartrain and vicinity projects. section 108, the secretary may transfer up to $308 million to mitigate for fisheries lost. section $109, none of the funds may be used by the corps of engineers pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the federal water pollution control act. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by
mr. moran of virginia. page 14, strike lines 3 through 11 and redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i have explained what this amendment does. i believe that it is critically important to protect the head waters and the wetlands of america. two supreme court rulings cast considerable doubt on what is to be considered navigatable water. clearly some waters that may have been protected in the past are not now protected, but there is a great deal of confusion as to which waters do need to be protected. that's why more than 100 environmental groups, more than 16 major sportsmen groups have
urged adoption of this amendment which strikes section 109. because section 109 precludes the corps of engineers and e.p.a. from issuing regulations that would clarify what waters do fall under federal protection. the original idea was that you would define waters that are contiguous, that you can see on the surface, that you can navigate or that -- across from one state to another as falling under federal protection. the problem is there are a lot of waters that part of the year may run under the ground or still contiguous and supply water to streams and to rivers, that are absolutely important to our economy and to our
environment. so which of those waters should e.p.a. and the corps of engineers regulate during part of the year and part of the year the water flows under the surface, it's still important. if we don't enable our federal agencies to clarify which waters are to be protected, many wetlands will be filled in. many habitats will be destroyed. many streams that run alongside mines will be filled with toxic material that will then subsequently run into rivers and water supplies that people need for their drinking water. some bodies of water will be
filled in with sewage. some wetlands will be filled in for industrial, commercial and retail -- residential development. some of that doesn't need to be protected, but much of it does. and all of it needs to be clarified. there's no way we can clarify what can be used and what needs to be protected unless the corps of engineers and e.p.a. are allowed to go forward with regulations. that they issued this spring. now, there's still comments coming in. they're still listening to all the parties involved. but once they issue these regulations, private interest will no what can be developed, what can't -- will know what can be developed, what can't.
mining firms, farms will all know what water is under the jurisdiction of the corps and what water isn't. i believe that was the intent of the supreme court, two very important decisions. certainly said some waters are not under federal jurisdiction, but they clearly left open a vast amount of room for the federal government to then clarify which waters are under federal protection. so this legislation, and not only does it apply to this fiscal year, it applies to all subsequent years. this legislation is going to cast enormous doubt. it's going to generate millions of dollars of lawsuits all over the country.
that's why i oppose it, mr. chairman. i don't think it's in our economic interest or in our environmental interest for us not to clarify. i know that there is concern. some farmers and miners and businesses -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: but the fact of the matter is the right thing to do is move forward and strike section 109 of this bill. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? mr. rehberg: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rehberg: confusion. you heard the word confusion. there is no confusion. that pesky supreme court has ruled against the environmental community of america saying you're trying to overextend your authority or the belief in the authority and the regulatory agencies. there's no confusion here. it's a private property right. when the clean water act was
written, as the courts have made the decision, the u.s. supreme court or the fifth circuit, they made a determination that navigatable means navigatable. thank goodness. finally a court that gets it, a court that understands, that makes the right decision. there is no confusion here. the confusion is that there is an element within america's society that wants to regulate all water to the detriment of private property rights. they want to make a determination that if there is a stock water pond, we get control. if there is a stream, meaning it goes underground and occasionally when it rains too much and there's going to be motorola we want control -- going to be moisture, we want control. that's what we're talking about, overregulation. when we talk about jobs, where are the jobs? a lot of it is because of overregulation. might i remind my colleague from virginia when i first got to congress one of the biggest
issues was sewage dumped in a river. what river? the potomac in the dead of night. when their sewage system was full. the d.c. government took their sewage and dumped it into the potomac and you know what happened? we thought finally us western congressmen and women, that there was going to be parity, there was going to be equality, there was going to be a recognition that many of the rules and regulations were difficult, there needed to be an infrastructure bill that was going to come and clean up our waters and what did the virginia, maryland and d.c. delegate does to congress? they got an exemption from the decision to allow -- to continue to allow some of the things that were occurring in the potomac. you want to talk about the eng dangered species and the bridge south of here? going across the potomac. there was an endangered species act. we westerners thought, thank god, there is going to be parity, you're going to recognize some of the things
that we're having to deal with in the west just don't necessarily work as easily as you think they're going to. what do the delegates from d.c. and virginia and maryland do? they helped congress and the bureaucracy turn their back on those -- various regulations. this is clearly understood, this is clearly defined. we don't want the federal agencies mucking around in an issue that they don't understand . this is clearly an east versus west or an urban versus rural debate. finally, finally the courts have said, enough is enough. you've gone too far. there's no confusion, the only confusion is they want to create confusion, they want to make an argument so they can ultimately start overregulating one more time to the cost of our jobs, to the cost of our economy. frankly in some cases like in the potomac to the cost to our environment. shame on them. work with the western colleagues to clearly understand how to manage natural resources for the
betterment of the natural resource, for clean water, let the people that have allowed us the opportunity to have the clean water to have it in the future, that's private property, there's a -- that's a clear understanding of state regulation. one of the reasons we're even going through the whole states' rights issue in the water issue, the adjudication process in places like montana, is to so we can understand that it's a states' rights issue, we better understand water, especially the head waters, and frankly the downstream states are the beneficiary of the clean water that we're spending -- sending them. don't further hamstring us, don't allow additional regulatory oversight for the various agencies that are helping to create the problem and we'll have beater clean water society, we'll have a better environment, we'll have a better america and as a result we have will have the jobs that we want. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields back his time.
the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment and to support the underlying bill. water rights are a state issue and this amendment would allow two federal agencies to increase their own scope of jurisdiction pursuant to the clean water act. those agencies have acknowledged that this amendment would allow them to increase the scope of their jurisdiction under the cha clean water act -- under the clean water act. it is not that nonnavigable waters non-navigable waters go without regulation. non-navigable waters are regulated. they are regulated in the states
by state systems. in the state of wyoming that system is a regulatory system administered by the executive branch. in colorado that system is an adjudicatory system regulated through the courts. but in every case in the west where water is precious and sparse the people who control it, whether it is in my state like the control and our water commissioners, our superintendents, our ditch riders, our ranchers, our farmers, our division of department of environmental quality, they know the names of the streams, they know the names of the people who interact with the streams, the lifestock that interacts with the streams, the wildlife that interacts with the streams, the weeds, the crops, the grass, they understand these ecosystems.
state government has been regulating water for over a century in a very comprehensive, clear, boots on the ground, understand the systems way of managing. now, if you take that and allow the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers to expand their jurisdiction in a way that includes non-navigable waters it will take that regulatory scheme that is working so well and it will bring it to washington, 2,000 miles away from where the regulators are currently doing their jobs well every day, and put it right here in washington, d.c., where people don't understand the scarsity of water, where people don't understand our regulatory schemes, where they don't
understand our case law, where they don't understand our ditch writers, where they don't understand our superintendents, where they don't understand our boards of control, they don't understand our state engineers. under the western attorneys general conference there is a specific entity related to the state engineers, the state engineers in the west are the people who regulate water, they meet regularly to discuss interstate issues in water jurisdiction as well as intrastate issues. this is a well regulated, well understood, well managed, well articulated system. to take it and decide the federal government for no good reason could do better at a time when the federal government is broke and we cannot expand its jurisdiction without costing the
taxpayers needlessly more is a travesty, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming yields back her time. the gentleman from washington. >> mr. chairman, i move to striket last word. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise too to oppose this amendment offered by my friend from virginia, an amendment offered in my mind to protect a this administration's overreach on regulating all bodies of water in this country. as my friend from montana alluded to, this really is a job-killing amendment. section 109 of the energy and water development appropriations bill puts a check on this administration's proposed guidance on clean water act regulations. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, at a time when unemployment exceeds 9%, this so-called guidance document from my point of view,
being from the west, will undermine economic growth, it will increase permitting requirements and undoubtedly lead to more litigation. according to the american farm bureau, this guidance document would, and i quote, would take an overly broad view of waters of the united states and would serve as a road map to designate nearly all bodies of water, even some dry land, as subject to federal regulation that dictates land use decisions, and i end quote. mr. chairman, water is a precious commodity, especially to those of us in the west. it is a necessary resource for many activities, including ac consult, energy, transportation -- agriculture, energy, transportation and recreation. our economy and way of life cannot afford to have the federal government claim control over all waterways in this country. this administration's attempt to enact such draconian regulations
through regulatory fiat is a deliberate attempt to circumvent congress. as millions -- many of my colleagues know, the prior congress could not pass an overly restrictive renewal of the clean water act. so it's clear that this part of the regulatory agenda is aimed at picking up the pieces that the congress could not enact last time. so it's for this reason that i joined 169 of my colleagues in april of 2010 to urge both the e.p.a. and the corps of engineers to withdraw these proposed guidance regulations. that was in april of 2010. unfortunately this administration refuses to do so. so that is why section 109 is so important, to protect rural america from this overzealous bureaucracy and for that reason, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the
balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i appreciate the recognition and i rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. without this amendment the bill would result in increased implementation costs to build the federal and state resource agencies as well as to regulate ed community. increased delays in the implementation of important public works projects and protracted litigation on the disparity between existing federal regulations and the two court decisions. clearly the army corps of engineers cannot exceed its congressional authority. but it's certainly necessary that the law and regulations be collarified given the supreme court decision. there is a purpose to the clean water act. it is to protect the nation's
waterways. in all of the environmental and economic benefits of these aquatic ecosystems are at risk if some elements are protected and others are not. we certainly need to make sure that the definitions are predictable and management. the definition of waters protected by the clean water act should be clear, understandable, well supported and transparent to the public. i am concerned if the language currently in the bill is not removed that will not be the consistency between the clean water act and agricultural wetland programs. we need the identification to waters covered by the clean water act and the food security act and operational elements of implementing programs should reflect consistent, prohibitble and straightforward decision guidelines. we ought to be precise on exemptions as well. my further concern is that the provision now contained in the bill does not apply simply to
the coming fiscal year. it applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, ensuring uncertainty continues indefinitely and so i am opposed, i am sorry, i am in strong support of the gentleman's amendment and would be willing to yield time to him. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. >> i thank my very good friend, the ranking member of energy and water appropriations. let me first address the points that were made by my very good friend from montana. mr. moran: first of all, there was a suggestion that there was sewage dumped into the potomac river. i think that's pretty much a quote. that's not accurate, i would say to mied if ve good friend -- i would say to my very good friend of. it was not sewage, it was clean, filtered silt that came from a drinking water reservoir that was put into the potomac without any threat to the quality of the
water or the habitat. the corps of engineers understood that. they don't now put it there, but i don't think it's quite accurate to describe it in the way that it was. with regard to the supreme court ruling, even justice scalia made it clear that waters that are adjacent to navigable waters should be federally regulated and protected. so the statement that was offered in the debate is not entirely accurate. i would also mention that e.p.a. does have an office in montana and in fact the people who were adversely affected by the oil pipeline leak that put a considerable amount of oil into the river, they are saying that e.p.a. was wonderful, tremendously helpful to them.
and that's what e.p.a. wants to be now, not only to individual communities adversely affected but to the businesses, to the mining interest, to the farming interest that need clarification on what waters are appropriately under federal jurisdiction. so let me now yield back my time to the distinguished gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> i move to strike the last word. nebraska is recognized for five minutes -- the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: thank you. i want to yield my time to the gentleman from montana. mr. rehberg: i thank the gentleman from nebraska. there was more than just clean water dropped in to the potomac. it was done in the dead of the night. it would not have been done in
the dead of the night if it was done legally or above board. if you want to talk about the oil spill in montana, the yellowstone river is a navigatable strem. yes, the e.p.a. did a good job. to my knowledge yet, and that is still yet to be opened to interpretation because we're waiting, there has been no loss of life among fish. we'll wait and see. certainly some of the ramifications will be down the road as a result of the studies that occur, and we do appreciate the e.p.a. coming in. but, again, it was navigatable stream. and this amendment strips what we are trying to do to protect nonnavigatable from being expanded beyond the original intent. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield just for a question? mr. rehberg: certainly. mr. dicks: the gentleman talks about the potomac. i have been here for many, many years. i was on the staff in the other
body, and at the time -- and this was probably in the mid 1970's -- what the gentleman says was an issue. mr. rehberg: what are you talking about? allowing me to reclaim my time. mr. dicks: this was more recent? mr. rehberg: this was in the year 2000. mr. dicks: it was because of the clean water act. the potomac got cleaned up. i yield back. mr. rehberg: the issue was not the result of the clean water act being established to clean up the various rivers around the country. the issue had to do specifically with the potomac and the discharge that occurred within the potomac and those of us from the western caucus in 2001, which is when i first got to congress, were trying to make the issue of the hypocrisy between the eastern constituency, the urban constituency of washington,
d.c., virginia, and maryland trying to apply a different standard to montana. so the issue was specific to the discharge in the potomac and there was specific to the wilson bridge and the endangered species and the hypocrisy of two separate interpretations. the supreme court has made an interpretation that the agencies are going too far. we agree with it. the language in the bill agrees with it. this amendment is a bad amendment and i hope you vote no. i yield back. mr. terry: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words and i yield to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman. i am not going to belabor this, but i do think for the record we should clarify some of what the gentleman said is accurate except for the material. this was not sewage. this was filtered silt that
came from a drinking water reservoir that is operated by the corps of engineers. they did put it into the potomac after their finding it would not jeopardize the health of the fish or any of the vegetation, and they did seek an exemption. they lost. and now that silt is put in the landfill. mr. dicks: i'd like to ask the gentleman a question. does the gentleman not believe as i do that the potomac river is far better today in terms of water quality because of the clean water act. mr. moran: there's no question. there's no question that the clean water act is responsible for the health such as it is of the potomac river. there was a time when you could almost strike a match and put -- and light the potomac river
on fire. there was so much pollution in it. debris. mr. dicks: there was rivers in pennsylvania where in fact they did that. it was lit on fire. and then the clean water act was passed by congress and guess who signed it? richard millhouse nixon. he signed that bill. he signed the clean air act, the environmental policy act. and in those days there were republicans who cared about the environment. bill ruckle. to hear this rant over there about the clean water act is really despicable, and this amendment, your amendment would improve it, would protect the environment, clarify the supreme court decisions so that we can get on with it and to make the waters of our country fishable, swimmable and -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: and cleaned. yes, i will yield to the distinguished chairman of the natural resources committee. mr. rahall: this amendment is
not about the clean water act. this amendment is about a bureaucratic guidance on an issue, on an issue that this congress attempted to take up last time that simply among other things said that the jurisdiction of the clean water act would not be navigatable waters. mr. hastings: now, that causes a whole lot of us in the west a lot of problems. coming from an irrigation area, it bothers me because that means that the federal government would now be in charge of anything not navigatable which could be irrigation streams. mr. dicks: reclaiming my time. i'd just say to the gentleman, why don't you as chairman -- do you have jurisdiction over this or is this the commerce committee? mr. hastings: this is transportation. mr. dicks: which one? mr. hastings: transportation. diction dks you guys are in the majority now. -- mr. dicks: you guys are in the majority now. you are chairman of the committee. why don't you have the committee hold a hearing? we don't -- the fact is what you're trying to do in this
appropriations bill is so egregious that we have to use an amendment to fix it. mr. hastings: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: yes, i yield. mr. hastings: my issue is not -- the issue for me is not the clean water act. the issue is attempt to amend the clean water act to take out navigatable and that is being done potentially by the guidance with this. that's what this amendment -- mr. dicks: taking back my time. again, the regulatory process hasn't even been completed. people are still sending in comments. and so to use a blunt -- a blunt tool and put this prohibition in here doesn't allow the process to work to make sure we can clarify the supreme court decision. mr. moran: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: if i have time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: i want to say this amendment prevents guidance and
rulemaking. the that comprehensive. what e.p.a. and the corps of engineers is trying to do is clarify where federal jurisdiction extends and where it ends. there is clearly confusion on what constitutes navigatable waters. the supreme court recognized that. even justice scalia said it's not navigatable waters, it's waters that's contiguous and there are a number of water sources under the surface you can't see. most of the water in this country is under the surface. it can be on land. it is underwater. mr. dicks: reclaiming my time for a second. the gentleman may be better off in the long term by letting the process work and if it does then clarify between navigatable and nonnavigatable. that would be important to the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: yes. mr. hastings: the law is clear. it only says navigatable. that's what the law says right now. that's where the danger comes from. mr. dicks: let's work together
to clarify it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does any other member wish to speak time on the gentleman from virginia's amendment. if not the question is on the gentleman from virginia's amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: we request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the gentleman from virginia will be post poped. -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 14, line 12, section 110, none of the funds may be used to relocate any regional division headquarters of the corps located at a military installation. sex 111. -- section 111. mr. terry: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. terry of nebraska.
at the end of title 1, insert the following -- section, not later than one year after the date of enactment of this act the army corps of engineers shall conduct and publish the results of a study regarding the reasons and contributing factors that led to the admirable flooding of the missouri river during the spring and summer of 2011 with specific focus on whether the water management activities of the corps conducted for any purpose other than flood prevention and control contributed to the 2011 flooding and in what ways. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you, madam chairman. and i rise today with this amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill. this amendment would direct the army corps of engineers to conduct and publish a study regarding the flooding of the missouri river this year.
we need to know why this flooding occurred, particularly if our flood control system was utilized for purposes other than flood prevention so we can prevent this from happening in the future. let me be clear. i would assume the corps of engineers in charge of flood control would be doing an annual study of whether or not they are succeeding in their legislative mandated goals. the whole purposes of the dams along the river. so we're just simply asking them to do what they should be doing anyway, especially when this is such an interesting -- well, strike the word interesting -- devastating year based on the miscalculations of the corps of engineers. as i'm standing here now, the missouri is flooding in five states including nebraska and iowa. in my own district, i have
constituents damaged, underwater, wiped out as we stand here. we are wondering if the levees will hold back the water preventing downtown omaha from being flooded. this is a 90-day sustained flood. it's entitled the great missouri river flood of 2011. not to recede until maybe october or november. anyone who lives near a powerful body of water knows flooding is a reality and must be expected or planned for. that's the whole point of these dams in the corps of engineer's purpose is to reduce the flooding. it's been successful since the dams have been put in except for the last couple years. it's imperative that we
investigate the decisions, guidelines and parameters in place to do the flooding to determine if there was any possibility that this disaster could have an, i would say, should have been prevented. we must implement the necessary additional reforms and controls to ensure our flood control system is utilized for just that, madam chairman, flood control. the issues, well documented in our local papers and some other publications, has shown that either the manual, that the corps of engineers swears by, leads them down the wrong path which then led to this disaster that we're incurring at this moment or that their' modeling
and/or modeling. there were other weather experts that were predicting, and one said a flood of biblical purr portions, yet, it wasn't on the corps of engineers' radar. something went terribly wrong here, so all we're doing is asking that there be specific language that they do what is inherent to their job and determine if their manuals, their models need to be changed to prevent the devastating floods that were occurring and incurring right now to prevent the next one in the future. that's all we're doing with this amendment here. so at this point in time i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from north carolina, for what purpose do you rise? >> yes, madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: there is an amendment being discussed at this time. the gentleman from new jersey
to speak to his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: yes, madam chair, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, i make a point of order against this amendment because it approximate purr poses to change existing law under appropriations bill. therefore, violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part an amendment in the general appropriations bill should not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to speak? mr. terry: i would like to speak. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you. i tried to make the case that this is basically reiterating already current dutyies and responsibilities of the corps, but stressing that they need to look specifically at what causes or what caused this devastating flood. i have to admit that you're probably going to rule that this
is legislating but i got to tell you, i'm extremely disappointed. if we had somebody in the missouri valley on appropriations committee they could have done something similar to this in committee but yet when somebody from outside the committee comes here at the right opportunity then somehow it's out of order. i just don't know how i go back to my constituents and tell them that the leadership in the house has raised an objection to this study. so i'm disappointed for my constituents, i'm disappointed frankly in the fact that something like this that's so necessary and obvious wasn't accepted. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska yields back. any other member wish to speak to the gentleman's point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new dutyies on the army corps of engineers. the amendment therefore does constitute legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 2157bd the point of order is sustained, the amendment is not in order.
for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcen entire of north carolina. insert the following, section 112, section 156 of the water resources development act of 1976, 42 u.s.c., 1962-d-5-f is amended by striking they and inserting a the. two, by inserting before the period the following, whereafter the date of the last estimated periodic nourishment of contemplated in the chief's report, which ever is latter, and, three, by adding at the end the following, b, before the end of the 50-year period referred to in subsection 8, the -- a, the subcommittee of the army shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, therefore undertake a review of a project to which subsection 8
provides to evaluate the feasibility of continuing federal participation in the project and shall make a recommendation to the congress. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes to speak to his amendment. macmacthank you, -- mcmcthank you. congress authorized -- mr. mcen entire: thank you, madam speaker. for a period of up to 50 years from the starting date of the initial construction of the project. several of these projects are rapidly approaching the end of that first 50-year period of federal participation. currently there's no language in place to provide a process for the re-authorization of these projects. in order for the federal government to remain a
continuing partner to protect the people, the infrastructure, the economy and the environment of our nation's coastal community, congress must give the army corps of engineers the authority to assess continued federal participation in expiring beach and coastal projects prior to the end of their original authorizations in order to prevent interpretations to federal renourishment efforts. you this this would allow the army corps and local communities help determine whether or not to continue a shore protection project based on science, on local support and the standards that the corps uses for determining whether there should be continued federal fiscal participation and whether it is warranted. these projects are of national and regional significance, coastal storm damage reduction projects not only support regional economies and indeed the national economy but they provide critical protection against hurricanes and as we now are in hurricane season realize
the seriousness of this and other dangerous storms. federal participation in these projects is determined based on a benefit-cost analysis. meaning that these projects go through a significant study in order to determine that they are merited and that it is in the federal government's financial interest to continue to participate in these projects. however, lease -- let's be clear that this amendment would not cut congress out of the loop, because congress will always have the final say on final approval of re-authorizing these projects. any approval for a construction phase would still have to be approved by congress. so it only makes sense to allow these projects to proceed without interpretation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey to speak to his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i must oppose the amendment as authorizing on an appropriations bill.
i share the gentleman's support for the corps of engineers' participation in beach replenishment projects that provide protection from coastal storms, for individuals and businesses, coming from a state with 137 miles of shoreline, i too understand the importance of these projects to local, regional and our national economy. the amendment offered however would add authorizing language to the energy and water bill, therefore it is subject to a point of order. so while i am sympathetic to the gentleman's intent, i must oppose the amendment and will insist upon the point of order. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? the chair finds that the amendment proposes directly to change existing law and as such it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2-c of rule 21 and the point of order is sustained.
the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: yes. members, and, madam speaker, i'm having help facing this chart up here just to show how much trell america imports, the red line, and overall how much we use. it tote de-- a totally dependent nation. i offer this amendment to help restore the energy security, economic security and environmental security of our nation, nothing could be more vital. my amendment takes a small step and shifts a very small amount of funds, $10 million, from the administrative costs within the department of energy to help restore funds to solar energy research and development within the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. sadly the base bill jeopardizes america's new energy future as it cuts research in solar energy
by more than 1/3 from last year and over 60% from the president's request, providing $166 million but that's $97 million below fiscal year 2011 and $291 million below the president's request. the $10 million in reprogramming represents less than 5% of the $220 million administrative budget of the department of energy. if they made their buildings more energy efficient we could shift the funds into research on new technologies. for month ivebs been hearing from constituents outraged about the high price of gas and energy in our country. and once again the recent jobs statistics from the department of labor tell us very clearly that every time you have an oil price hike you have rising unemployment. you can go back 40 years, every
time it goes over $4 a gallon, we get a spike in unemployment. it's not rocket science. as it stands this bill reinforces our dependence on foreign oil. by contract my amendment focuses on a new energy future for america by shifting a modest amount of funds for solar energy to provide american consumers with the new choices that they want. our priorities in this bill must be aligned with the needs of our nation for tomorrow, not yesterday. america shouldn't be held hostage by future energy price spikes. we must promote sustainable environmental stewardship while creating jobs right here in our country. we need to address budgetary realities in this -- and this bill does it but there are accounts we have cut. but investments in new energy sources to displace imported oil is not the place to cut. not when america is this dependent. research investments in solar
technology has helped create numerous new companies creating thousands of high quality jobs already with domestically produced energy. but we are at the dawn of a new energy age and we can't lose edge now. solar companies already employ over 90,000 american workers and are expected to grow in both sales and jobs. but that depends on new research and many of the fledgling companies can't afford to do that. last week i saw a spanish solar panel manufacturer announced plans to open a new plant in ohio that will create more than 300 jobs. global firms know that particularly northern ohio has made renewable energy a priority and the investment is following. congress simply must focus on a new energy future for our nation and not let inertia in the habits of the past thwart progress. overall the u.s. economy is anticipated to increase jobs by 2% next year, but guess what? in the solar industry the number
of new jobs is expected to increase 26% according to cornell university's 2010 solar jobs census. those are the kind of jobs that america wants. in a recent earnston young report predicts the cost of solar to decrease by as much as half, creating a strong solar option for american consumers and providing solar companies with the opportunity to expand. you know, investors know where to put their dollars and our nation knows that this -- or we should know that this is an emerging industry and cutting-edge research is fundamental to progress. the race to be the energy provider of the few fur is this general reaction -- future is this generation's space race and basic research is critical, it's fundamental, it is the fundamental ingredient to mr. that new future for our people. america has never shirked a major challenge. and we have a real finish line to go across as competitors are
fierce from china, from germany from japan. new technology will provide a new power future for us. and we must position ourselves not to be second, not to be third, but to be the global leader and to create those good jobs here at home. so my amendment sets a course to keep the keel more steady as we advance energy security, economic security and the environmental security of our nation while promoting jobs here at home through new energy independence and innovation. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the kaptur amendment. the chair: the time has expired. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 58, line 1, title 2, department of the interior, central utah project, central utah project completion account, $27,154,000. bureau of reclamation, appropriations shall be expended to execute authorized functions of the bureau of reclamation, water and related resources,
$822,300,000. central valley project restoration fund, $53,068,000. california bay delta restoration, $35,928,000. policy and administration $60 million. administrative provision, appropriations for the bureau of reclamation shall be available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles. general provisions, department of the interior, section 201, none of the funds shall be available through a reprogramming of funds that creates or initiates a new program, project or activity. section 202, none of the funds may be used to determine the final point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the san lewis unit until development of a plan. section 203 of the funds
deposited in the san what you keen river restoration -- san joaquin river restoration funds, all are permanently rescinded. title 3, department of energy, energy programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy, $1,304,636,000. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: yes, i move to strike the last word. the chair: does the gentlelady offer an amendment? ms. kaptur: yes, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. can the gentlelady clarify which amendment? ms. kaptur: page 23, line 4rks dealing with solar energy. movement of $10 million.
the chair: clerk. the clerk: page 24, line 4, amendment offered by ms. kaptur of ohio. insert increase by $10 million. ms. kaptur: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? the gentleman from new jersey. >> point of order. we want to know which amendment they are talking about. the clerk: after the dollar amount insert reduced by $10 million. page 32, line 3, insert reduced by $10 million.
mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman from's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved and the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: yes. madam chair, i made a statement a little bit earlier regarding this amendment which aims to help restore energy security, economic security and environmental security of our nation by focusing on the future, and it essentially shifts a very modest amount of funds, $10 million, from the administrative costs within the department of energy to help restore funds to solar energy research and development within the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. sadly, the bill overall moves
backward in terms of helping america in helping the energy future because it cuts by more than one-third from last year and 60% from the president's request. it provides $166 million in the base bill for solar research which is a $97 million reduction below this year's level and a $291 million reduction below the president's request. what sense does that make when we're importing petroleum at this level and we continue to use more and more? prices are going up. it's pretty clear america needs new answers. so my effort is to merely reprogram about 5% of the funds in the administrative budget of the department of energy and shift those to the energy efficiency and renewable energy program itself. i believe that the department of energy, which took years to
even get their solar array up at the national headquarters here, could save the money that we need to put into research if they merely be more energy efficient about their own buildings and that comes out of their administrative fund. so this is a 5% shift. it's $10 million from the administrative budget and puts it into hard research that really creates jobs. we know that america has to invent her future. we can't depend on the sources of the past alone, and technology is critical to that. in the solar field the competition globally for patents and for the cutting edge research that is part of this sector that is just growing so fast globely, america simply can't slip backwards. we have to keep up our edge and it's very difficult with china, with germany having the kind of incentives they do in their own country. for example, china even offers
companies 15-year tax holidays and they have so many engineers and scientists on working on this. i think cutting this option is not a good option for the country. this bill makes many other cuts. we know that research investments in solar technology has created numerous companies already, and thousands and thousands of new jobs. in fact a solar company employ over 90,000 american workers now, and they expect both growth in sales and jobs, but that depends fundamentally on cutting edge breakthroughs in technology. and that is a fight that's being held every day. not just in this country, but in research platforms around the world. i mentioned earlier that a spanish solar company in my region announced 300 new jobs this past week. so global firms are coming to place like northern ohio that they know that the energy systems of the future are being
built. but the number of jobs being created in this sector far exceed what is being created in just a general job creation sector in our country. cornell university's 2010 solar job census shows that in solar engine the number of new jobs is increasing by 26%. and those are good jobs building a new future for our country and for our people. but we know that many of these entrepreneurial companies are too small to do their own in-house research, and so we know that we still need federal research and basic research to help us use new materials to develop the new transmission technology to make them truly competitive to compete against the chinas and germanys of the world that is taking market share as i stand here even today. so the race is a serious one in the solar energy race, and basically research is a critical ingredient. so my amendment essentially moves 5% out of the funds out
of the administrative accounts into the energy efficiency accounts at the department. i ask for my colleagues' support on that, and hopefully we can make help a small step for american and humankind. and i will reclaim my existing time. the chair: the time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey insist on his point of order? mr. frelinghuysen: i insist on my point of order. madam chair, the amendment proposes to amend pourses of the bill not read. -- pourses of the bill not read. it -- the amendment is not merely proposed to transfer
appropriations among objects in the bill but also proposes language other than amounts. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: yes. madam chair, i would thank the gentleman very much for his thoughtful point of order and would ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and i have a revised amendment at the desk that i think will satisfy his concerns. the chair: is there objection to the withdrawal of the pending amendment? mr. frelinghuysen: no objection. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. does the gentlelady from ohio have another amendment to offer? ms. kaptur: yes. i have a revised amendment that is at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the revised amendment. the chair: amendment offered by ms. kaptur of ohio. page 23, line 4, after the
dollar amount insert increased del 10 million. after the dollar amount insert reduced by $10 million on page 24, line 4. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. ms. kaptur: i'd offer this amendment as a new amendment that would perform essentially the same function. that is to satisfy any concerns the gentleman might have about where we are moving funds from and moving them to in the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. mr. frelinghuysen: could you -- the chair: does the gentlelady yield back? mr. frelinghuysen: did not hear the question posed, madam chair. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: yes. i would say i had offered a revised amendment that i would hope would satisfy the gentleman's concern on his point of order. this is a new amendment. it essentially moves dollars
from the administrative accounts at the department of energy to the energy efficiency and renewable emergency block grant. the chair: does the gentlelady from ohio yield back? ms. kaptur: i would retain my existing time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: does the gentleman have concerns? mr. frelinghuysen: yes, i do. i rise to oppose the amendment even though you worked very hard to correct some of it. ms. kaptur: could i ask the gentleman the nature in the opposition, please? mr. frelinghuysen: well, i'd like to take my own time to respond. in a more formal manner. i'd be happy to yield to you perhaps at the end of my remarks. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. madam chair -- the chair: does the gentlelady from ohio yield back her time? does the gentlelady from ohio yield back her time? ms. kaptur: yes, i would yield
back my time. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio yields back her time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the amendment. the amendment -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment that has been rewritten somewhat would reduce funding for salaries and expenses in order to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities at the department of energy. within this year's extraordinarily tight budget constraints the bill cannot fund programs that overlap improperly with the private sector, for one, or for that -- or do not have pressing needs for additional appropriations. in other words, madam chair, i can't support reducing funds for an account that -- especially for accounts in administrative purposes that oversee departmentive activities. we need more oversight in the department of energy, so i reluctantly oppose her amendment. as i promised, i said i would yield to her.
ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman very much and i know the choices are difficult. i guess i would put my marbles on getting the department to be more efficient in administrative operations on its nuclear side, on its civil side and put more dollars into research and development and i regret the gentleman's objection but i have the highest respect for him and maybe we can work on this amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back and still oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from ohio. and those in favor will signify big saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have is and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.
the chair: would the gentleman from california specify his amendment that he's offering? >> yes. it's the amendment to h.r. 2354, beginning with line -- page 23, line 4. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. insert reduce by $1,304,636,000. page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $289,420,000,000.
page 24, line 18, insert reduced by $476,993,000. page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $820,488,000,000. page 28, line 3, insert reduced by $100 million. page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $160,000,000. insert reduced by $6 million. page 3 , line 4, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $500,000. page 52, line 15, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $68,400,000. page 53, line 7, after the dollar amount insert reduced which $11,700,000. page 53, line 13, after the dollar amount insert reduced by
$10,700,000. page 54, line 4, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $1,350,000. page 54, line 12, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $250,000. page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert increased by $3,250,437,000. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam chairman. i offer this amendment on behalf of the republican study committee to save roughly 10% from this appropriations bill worth $3.75 billion by getting the federal government out of the energy subsidy business. for more than 30 years the department of energy has squandered bills of dollars, subsidizing research and development that no private investor would such with the promise it would somehow make